She followed Commission advice but still missed the deadline by two days
A dismissed worker who filed two claims to protect her options ended up with none at all.
The Fair Work Commission has thrown out an unfair dismissal application in a case that highlights a procedural rule that can catch employees off guard.
In a decision handed down on 23 January 2026, Commissioner Panopoulos dismissed the application brought by Ms Cheryl O'Reilly against S & E Education Pty Ltd, finding no exceptional circumstances to extend the filing deadline she had missed by just two days.
The trouble began on 8 December 2025, when Ms O'Reilly, following her dismissal from the education provider, lodged not one but two applications with the Commission. The first was a general protections claim. The second, filed at 12:06pm the same day, was an unfair dismissal application.
Her reasoning, as she later explained, was that the complexity of her dismissal warranted keeping her options open while she sought advice on the correct jurisdiction.
That strategy proved to be her undoing.
Section 725 of the Fair Work Act operates as a one-claim rule: a dismissed employee cannot pursue multiple applications arising from the same termination. By lodging both claims before either had been withdrawn, Ms O'Reilly had breached the Act.
The Commission flagged the issue three days later in an email that spelled out the consequences. If Ms O'Reilly wished to continue with her unfair dismissal claim, she would need to withdraw both applications and start again with a fresh filing. The email also noted, plainly, that the 21-day statutory window applied—and that any late application would require an extension granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Ms O'Reilly did as instructed. She withdrew both matters and refiled her unfair dismissal application on 12 December 2025. The problem was the deadline had already passed. To file within time, she needed to have lodged by 10 December.
Two days late may not sound like much, but the Commission was unmoved.
Commissioner Panopoulos acknowledged that Ms O'Reilly had taken early steps to challenge her dismissal, a factor that weighed in her favour. But the reasoning behind the delay carried no water. Her bid to preserve her rights, the Commissioner observed,
