the Applicant v Randstad Pty Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2446
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission on May 24, 2026, following her dismissal from Randstad Pty Limited on May 22, 2026. She stated she began employment on December 8, 2025, meaning approximately five and a half months of service. The Commission noted that under the Fair Work Act, an employee must generally complete six months of employment before being eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. the Applicant did not respond to multiple requests from the Commission seeking clarification or submissions regarding her employment period.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application without a hearing. The decision was made under section 587 of the Fair Work Act, which allows the Commission to dismiss applications with no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission found the Applicant likely did not meet the minimum six-month employment period required for an unfair dismissal claim and she failed to provide information to challenge this assessment. As such, the application was dismissed on the Commission’s own initiative.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure accurate record keeping of employee start dates and service periods. This is crucial in determining eligibility for Fair Work claims like unfair dismissal. Promptly respond to Fair Work Commission inquiries regarding applications.
What it means for employees
Employees must meet the minimum employment period before lodging an unfair dismissal claim. Respond promptly to any requests from the Fair Work Commission seeking information or clarification about your employment history, as failure to do so can result in the application being dismissed.
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/2026fwc2446.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 →