the Applicant v Randstad Pty Limited
At a glance
- 1
What happened
the Applicant made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission on June 1, 2026, following her dismissal from Randstad Pty Limited on May 31, 2026. She stated she began employment on December 23, 2025, meaning approximately five months of service. The Commission staff contacted the Applicant to inform her that she may not have met the minimum six-month employment period required for an unfair dismissal claim. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to obtain a response from the Applicant regarding this issue, no information was received.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The decision was made because the Applicant did not meet the minimum employment period requirement and failed to provide any information to dispute this. The Commission considered it inappropriate to proceed with the application as there were no reasonable prospects of success, citing section 587(1)(c) of the Act. the Applicant was given opportunities to respond but did not do so.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they clearly communicate dismissal procedures and timelines to employees. This case highlights the importance of verifying an employee's length of service before addressing unfair dismissal claims, as failing to meet minimum employment periods is a common reason for applications being dismissed.
What it means for employees
Employees considering making an unfair dismissal claim must be aware of eligibility requirements, including the minimum employment period. If there are doubts about meeting these requirements, it's crucial to respond promptly to any inquiries from the Fair Work Commission and seek legal advice if needed.
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.