the Applicant v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2904
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant applied for an unfair dismissal remedy in April 2026, claiming he was dismissed around mid-2018, later amended to February/March 2019. He stated he was unfamiliar with Australian law and Uber didn't inform him of time limits. The application was filed over 2,500 days late. the Applicant initially used the wrong form (F2) and then submitted a Form F89 seeking reactivation of his Uber account.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application because it was filed significantly outside the 21-day timeframe. The Commissioner found no exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time. They noted ignorance of Australian law and lack of advice are not sufficient reasons for such a substantial delay. the Applicant's request to consider his claim despite the incorrect form was rejected.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that significant delays in lodging unfair dismissal applications will likely result in their dismissal. While employees may have valid concerns, failing to act promptly can prevent them from pursuing legal remedies. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to strict time limits.
What it means for employees
Employees must lodge unfair dismissal applications within 21 days of their dismissal or seek an extension promptly. Ignoring this timeframe and waiting years significantly reduces the chance of a successful claim, even if there are mitigating circumstances. Seeking legal advice early is crucial.
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/2026fwc2904.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 →