A missed 21-day deadline meant serious bullying allegations were never tested in a hearing
A worker fired weeks before Christmas, with bullying allegations unresolved, never got his day in court. The decision, however, deserves a closer look.
On 3 March 2026, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the unfair dismissal application of Russell Brentwood against his former employer, Outdoor Steel Solutions Co. Pty Ltd. He had missed the 21-day filing window, lodging his claim on 8 January 2026, ten days after the adjusted deadline of 29 December 2025. Commissioner Allison dismissed the application on that basis alone.
But the story does not start there.
Brentwood was dismissed without notice on 4 December 2025, three weeks before Christmas. He alleged that his termination was the direct result of a pattern of ongoing bullying by one of his managers, that the allegations used against him were unsubstantiated and without evidence, and that he was not given adequate opportunity to have a support person present during the dismissal process. Outdoor Steel countered that it had appropriately performance managed Brentwood, pointing to two prior written warnings issued on 16 May 2025 and 2 September 2025.
Because his application was dismissed on the filing deadline, none of these claims were tested in a hearing.
What makes the decision notable is what Commissioner Allison chose to put on the public record anyway. Despite making no formal findings on the bullying allegations, the Commissioner observed that "Outdoor Steel should treat any such claims of bullying seriously and ensure that such claims are appropriately investigated and if substantiated properly addressed." For a ruling that went no further than a missed deadline, that is a pointed statement to make.
Brentwood also submitted that the emotional toll of a sudden December dismissal had prevented him from filing in time. He had tried to see his GP but could not get an appointment because his GP was on leave. Without medical evidence, however, the Commission was unpersuaded. As the decision notes, "feeling stress, shock and/or anxiety after a termination is not unusual or exceptional." The late filing stood.
For employers and people managers, the case raises a few things worth considering.
When a dismissal follows a workplace complaint or bullying allegation, the sequence of events matters. Outdoor Steel's position rested on two written warnings, but whether those warnings predated or followed Brentwood's complaints was never examined. A performance management paper trail can look clean on its face while still carrying risk when the surrounding context is contested.
The decision also reinforces that unresolved complaints do not simply disappear when a legal process closes. A Commissioner's unsolicited public observation about uninvestigated bullying is not a formal finding, but it is on the public record.
Finally, on mental health: the law is clear that emotional distress alone, without medical evidence, will not extend a legal filing deadline. That is a practical consideration for how HR teams approach support for employees at the time of, and following, a termination.
