[2025] FWC 1186
At a glance
- 1
What happened
Heidi Pooler commenced employment with Hodgson Lawyers Pty Ltd in February 2024. In December 2024, she received a termination letter alleging performance issues, which she believes was related to her pregnancy and discussion of maternity leave. The letter stated a four-week notice period, with her last day of work being December 20, 2024, considering the Christmas closure, but with employment continuing until December 31, 2024. Pooler filed a general protections application with the Fair Work Commission on December 13, 2024, while on leave. Hodgson Lawyers objected, arguing the application was filed prematurely.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that Pooler’s dismissal took effect on December 31, 2024, meaning her application was technically filed out of time. However, Deputy President Lake exercised discretion to waive this irregularity under section 586(b) of the Fair Work Act. This decision was based on similar reasoning to the Mihajlovic v Lifeline Macarthur case, considering factors like the application’s merit and potential prejudice to the respondent. The jurisdictional objection was dismissed, and the matter will proceed to a conference.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully consider the effective date of termination, particularly when providing notice periods. Ensure termination letters clearly state the effective date to avoid disputes about when a dismissal took effect. Be mindful of potential discrimination claims if performance issues arise around protected attributes like pregnancy.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of the 21-day timeframe for lodging general protections applications following a dismissal. While technical errors can be waived, prompt action is generally advisable. If you believe adverse action was taken due to a protected attribute, seek legal advice promptly.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.