Commission demands hard medical evidence, not self-assessment, to prove exceptional circumstances
A workplace dismissal case collapsed before it even began after an employee missed the filing deadline by just four days, with depression and divorce cited but rejected.
In a decision handed down on 20 November 2025, the Fair Work Commission dismissed Kasey Seitz's unfair dismissal challenge against BIS Industries Pty Ltd, ruling that her reasons for the late filing fell short of the legal threshold needed to proceed.
The case offers a stark reminder to HR professionals about the rigid timelines governing workplace disputes and the high bar applicants face when seeking exceptions.
Seitz had enjoyed a swift rise at BIS Industries. She started as a trainee in August 2022 and climbed to operations supervisor by February 2025. But her trajectory came to an abrupt halt after an incident on or around 5 July 2025 that led to six safety-related allegations.
The company found she had failed to review and sign required safety documentation, allowed unauthorized tasks to proceed, and permitted an employee to drive a dump truck when they were not authorized to do so. Seitz disputed the claims entirely, saying she was asleep in her bed when the incident occurred.
Before her employment was terminated on 15 August 2025, Seitz had already signaled her intentions. In an email to the company on 12 August, she wrote that she would be taking the matter to Fair Work, adding that she strongly disagreed with the outcome and believed the incident had been handled unfairly.
Yet when it came time to file, Seitz missed the mark. Her application arrived on 9 September, four days past the statutory deadline. Under the Fair Work Act, applicants have 21 days to lodge an unfair dismissal claim unless they can show exceptional circumstances.
Seitz argued she had been overwhelmed by a perfect storm of personal crises. She pointed to a severe decline in her mental health, ongoing divorce proceedings, and leaving the family home where her two adult children still lived. She said she had seen her GP before the dismissal and been diagnosed with depression.
To back this up, she provided a partial letter from a law firm about her divorce, dated 12 August 2025, a screenshot showing Medicare claims from 20 August and 23 September, and a statement from a friend who had taken her in during August.
Deputy President Beaumont was unconvinced. The decision noted that while medical conditions can genuinely impair someone's ability to file on time, applicants need solid medical evidence to prove it. A person's own assessment of their mental state does not cut it.
The Commission also drew on established case law showing that stress, shock, and confusion following job loss are common reactions, not exceptional circumstances. Losing a job is serious for anyone, the decision observed, and these responses are hardly unusual.
On the divorce, the Commission found that proceedings were already underway before 12 August, meaning Seitz was not blindsided by sudden legal action. And while she had moved out of her home, she was staying with a supportive friend in a caring environment, a far cry from cases involving homelessness or emergency accommodation.
The Commission acknowledged one point in her favor: she had taken steps to dispute the dismissal early on. But with other factors either neutral or working against her, the application failed the exceptional circumstances test.
The result meant the safety allegations were never tested. Seitz never got her day in court to challenge the merits of her termination.
