Jurisdictional objections in unfair dismissal claims

“You shall not pass!”

July 14, 2017

When an employer receives notice from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) of an unfair dismissal claim, the first question they should ask is – does the FWC have jurisdiction to hear the matter?

When an employer receives notice from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) of an unfair dismissal claim, the first question they should ask is – does the FWC have jurisdiction to hear the matter?

There are numerous circumstances in which the FWC may not have jurisdiction and/or in which an applicant may not be eligible to make a claim to the FWC. They can be one or a combination of the following:

The application was filed more than 21 days after the dismissal;
The applicant’s employment was terminated within the minimum employment period;
The applicant was not an employee (e.g. they were an independent contractor or volunteer);
The employer is not a national system employer;
The applicant was not dismissed or had resigned voluntarily;
The dismissal was as a result of a genuine redundancy;
For small businesses, the dismissal was in accordance with the Small Business Dismissal Code;
The applicant earned over the high income threshold and was not covered by a modern award or employed under the terms of an enterprise agreement;
The applicant was employed for a specified period, task, seasonal contract or traineeship, and was dismissed at the end of the period, task, season or traineeship; or
The applicant was a casual employee and not regularly / systematically employed and had no reasonable expectation of continuing employment.

Where an employer elects to raise a jurisdictional objection, the FWC will either:

Require competing submissions on the objection and then determine the issue either on the papers or at a separate hearing prior to dealing with the substantive application; or
Deal with the jurisdictional objection at the same time as the substantive application.

Raising a jurisdictional objection will not automatically result in an unfair dismissal claim being dismissed. However, if the FWC finds the jurisdictional objection to be a valid one, it has the potential to save employers from incurring further and unnecessary costs in needing to defend the claim.

For these reasons, it was interesting to read that the popular ridesharing company, Uber, has elected not to raise any jurisdictional objections to recent unfair dismissal claims lodged by some former drivers. The company asserts that their drivers are not “employees” under the FW Act but rather, are “self-employed contractors”. If, at some stage, the FWC agreed with the latter argument that all Uber drivers are “self-employed contractors” then Uber would be entitled to that jurisdictional objection in the face of unfair dismissal claims.

Rather than try to secure such a finding and having these claims dismissed by the FWC, Uber has decided instead to pay one former driver a confidential settlement sum and is currently in the process of negotiating settlement of the other claims. While commercially this makes sense (See our blog Employment Law Essentials – It’s not over till it’s over: Ramifications of unfair dismissal proceedings) – is Uber losing an opportunity to have the FWC determine the employee v contractor question?

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

FWC finds employer’s assumptions about employee’s capacity rendered dismissal unfair

You need to chill out

If an employer is questioning the capacity of an ill or injured worker’s ability to fulfil the inherent requirements of their position, they may consider testing the legitimacy of an employee’s prognoses and medical advice. In these circumstances, the employer should be aware of their obligations to the employee and the potential consequences of failing to satisfy them.

March 27, 2025

Blogs

FWC finds summary dismissal not warranted despite employee’s misconduct

A not-so serious problem

In the recent unfair dismissal decision of Carmody v Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 259, the FWC has clarified what will (or will not) constitute ‘serious misconduct’ warranting summary dismissal in the context of managing employee performance.

March 13, 2025

Blogs

FWC finds that employer dismissed employee who refused to sign new employment contract

Blank space

In its simplest form, an employment contract is a legally enforceable document between two parties where there is an offer and acceptance to be bound by its terms and conditions. Where an employment contract has been signed, it cannot be unilaterally changed by one of the parties – there must be agreement by both parties.

January 22, 2025

Blogs

Unfair Dismissal

FWC finds employer’s assumptions about employee’s capacity rendered dismissal unfair

You need to chill out

March 27, 2025

Blogs

FWC finds dismissal harsh and unreasonable given employer’s communication blunder of policy changes

Sliding into your DM’s

It is best practice for employers to ensure that their policies and procedures are properly communicated and understood by employees, especially in circumstances where the policy relates to important topics such as the health and safety of employees.

March 27, 2025

Blogs

Poor redundancy process results in successful workers compensation claim

Coffee catastrophe

There are a number of legal obligations and risks that an employer must consider when implementing any form of disciplinary or dismissal process. These are not limited to claims made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) but can also include the risk of claims made under anti-discrimination or workers compensation legislation.

March 13, 2025

Resources: Blogs

“You shall not pass!”