the Applicant v Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) Trading AS Aldi
Citation: [2026] FWC 2625
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant lodged an unfair dismissal application against Aldi Stores on April 9, 2026. A conciliation conference was scheduled for May 26, 2026, with reminders sent via email and SMS. the Applicant did not attend the conference nor contact the Fair Work Commission regarding her absence. The Commission issued further notices advising that the application would be dismissed if no response was received by July 9, 2026. No response was received.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found the Applicant's failure to attend the conciliation conference and lack of communication demonstrated a willingness to abandon her case. As stated in Viavattene v Health Care Australia, the Commission is not required to persevere with an application if an applicant does not participate. 'The application lodged by the Applicant on 9 April 2026 for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is dismissed.'
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they follow proper procedures when dealing with employee applications to the Fair Work Commission. This case highlights the importance of adhering to timelines and responding to correspondence from the Commission, as failure to do so can result in an application being dismissed.
What it means for employees
Employees who lodge applications with the Fair Work Commission must actively participate in the process. This includes attending scheduled conferences and responding to communications from the Commission within specified timeframes. Failure to do so may lead to your 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/2026fwc2625.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 →