FWC Deputy President irked by “speculative” GP claim from unmeritorious applicant

In the past 12 months, numerous members of the Fair Work Commission have been vocal in their frustration at the large number of general protections dismissal applications which have been lodged, despite lacking sufficient merit to warrant pursuit. Deputy President Alan Colman is the most recent voice to lament the scourge of unmeritorious applications contributing to the Commission’s “burgeoning caseload”, suggesting an “effective disincentive for speculative claims” should be implemented.

The Deputy President’s disgust with one applicant (a casual employee of Woolworths) was clear in the succinct decision dismissing his general protections dismissal claim. The full (three paragraph) decision of 7 May 2026, reads as follows:

Anyone wanting insight into the phenomenon of unmeritorious claims in the Fair Work Commission may wish to consider the case of [this applicant], whose application under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 I dismissed ex tempore earlier today. During a casual shift at Woolworths, [the applicant] was told by a coworker that (and I paraphrase) the cleft of his bottom was protruding from his trousers. It was suggested, in rude terms, that he cover up. [The applicant] was upset. His feelings were hurt. He lodged an application alleging that he had been dismissed in breach of his workplace rights under Part 3-1 of the Act. He wanted compensation. 

What dismissal? That was what Woolworths wanted to know. It said that [the applicant] continued to work shifts after lodging his claim and that he later stopped turning up for work. I so find. [The applicant] was not dismissed. He had no standing to make the application. This case had nothing to do with dismissal, or with Part 3-1 of the Act. It was evidently a speculative claim made in pursuit of a monetary settlement that would spare Woolworths the nuisance of defending it. I was unable to put this to [the applicant] because he ignored my direction to attend the telephone hearing. I note that this was [the applicant’s] fifth application in two years. 

Unmeritorious claimants have little to lose. This is unfair to respondents who have no case to answer. It is unfair to applicants with cases of substance waiting their turn to be heard. The Act allows costs to be ordered in some cases, but very often there are no compensable costs, only wasted time. There is no effective disincentive for speculative claims, and so they come, in great numbers, compounding the Commission’s burgeoning caseload. 

FWC processes in relation to general protections claims were refined earlier this year in the interest of efficiency, with applicants now compelled to provide a more rigorous articulation of the general protections provisions that have been contravened in order to pursue their claim, but the sheer volume of applications clearly remains high.

Davitkov v Woolworths Group Limited [2026] FWC 1655 (7 May 2026)