the Applicant v Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Limite & the Respondent
Citation: [2025] FWC 3945
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed from OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd on 9 October 2025. He filed an application with the Fair Work Commission on 22 November 2025, 22 days after the deadline. the Applicant claimed his dismissal contravened general protections and cited delays in receiving assistance from the CFMEU, grief over family deaths, and caring for a son with mental health issues as reasons for the late filing. The Respondents raised a jurisdictional objection arguing the application was lodged out of time.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission determined that the Applicant’s application was not filed within exceptional circumstances and therefore rejected his request to extend the time limit. the Commissioner found that while the Applicant cited reasons for the delay, including lack of assistance from the CFMEU and personal grief, he did not provide sufficient evidence to support these claims. The Commission noted that the Applicant appeared to have prioritised other matters over filing the application within the statutory timeframe.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that late applications to the Fair Work Commission are subject to strict time limits. While extensions can be granted, applicants must demonstrate exceptional circumstances with supporting evidence. Failing to do so may result in the application being rejected.
What it means for employees
Employees need to be mindful of the 21-day deadline for filing claims with the Fair Work Commission. If delays are unavoidable, it's crucial to gather and present robust evidence to support a request for an extension, including medical documentation where relevant. Relying on third parties like unions does not automatically excuse late filings.
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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc3945.pdfWant 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.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →