Her signed deed barred the claim, and the Commission agreed
A worker who signed a release agreement two days before her employment ended tried to pursue an unfair dismissal claim against her former employer anyway.
Julia Burton finished up at Nutrien Ag Solutions on 11 December 2025. Two days earlier, on 9 December 2025, she and Nutrien had signed a release agreement designed to draw a line under her employment. On 24 February 2026, she applied under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for an unfair dismissal remedy against Nutrien. Her application was filed 52 days out of time.
The release agreement was the kind HR teams use every day. Clause 2 said Burton "absolutely releases and forever discharges Nutrien and its related bodies corporate and their directors, officers, employees, agents and representatives" from essentially every claim connected to her employment or its end, excluding any statutory claim for workers' compensation or superannuation. Clause 8 went further, stating the agreement would operate as "an absolute bar to all claims, suits, demands and actions of whatsoever kind" threatened or brought by Burton against Nutrien arising out of or in connection with her employment or termination.
When the Commission's chambers wrote to the parties on 2 April 2026 asking Burton to confirm whether she wished to discontinue her application given the executed release agreement and the late filing, she did not respond. A case management conference followed on 14 April 2026, after which Commissioner Lim advised the parties in writing of a preliminary view that the application should be dismissed under s 587 of the Act on the basis it did not have reasonable prospects of success, because the release agreement included Burton releasing Nutrien from all claims arising from her employment or the termination of her employment. Burton filed submissions in response. Nutrien did not file formal submissions but provided a list of Commission decisions dealing with similar subject matter.
Burton pushed back. She accepted that she had signed the release but argued it should be treated as voidable. Her arguments were directed at whether her dismissal was a genuine redundancy; how Nutrien conducted the termination process and signing of the release agreement in bad faith and duress; and how the release agreement was premised on falsehoods.
These are serious allegations, and the Commission did not test them on the merits. Commissioner Lim explained that whether a release agreement is voidable on the basis it was entered into under duress is a matter for the courts; the Commission does not have the power to set aside a release agreement. As things stood, the parties were bound by what they had signed, with the Commissioner relying on the Full Bench decision in Chapman v Ignis Labs Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 3849 as authority on that point.
The Commissioner also leaned on a passage from Justice Besanko in Australian Postal Corporation v Gorman [2011] FCA 975, which set out that "An accord and satisfaction extinguishes the existing cause of action and replaces it with a new cause of action based on the agreement. A valid accord and satisfaction is not a discretionary factor relevant to the subsequent litigation of the original claim; it is an answer to the claim." Translated for HR: once the deed is signed, the unfair dismissal claim is no longer the live issue. The deed is.
On 29 April 2026, Commissioner Lim ordered that Burton's application filed under s 394 of the Act be dismissed pursuant to s 587(1)(c) of the Act. The matter was determined on the papers.
The case is a useful reminder of how much weight a well-drafted release agreement can carry. The clauses in Nutrien's deed were broad, specific about who was being released, and clear about acting as an absolute bar to future claims. That drafting did the heavy lifting.
It is also a reminder of where the Commission's reach ends. If a former employee alleges they signed under duress, in bad faith, or based on false information, the Fair Work Commission cannot unwind the deed. That fight belongs in court. For HR teams, this cuts both ways. A strong deed protects the business at the Commission, but the way an exit is conducted, including how and when a release is presented and signed, can still be scrutinised elsewhere.
And timing matters. Burton signed her release two days before her last day, showing that pre-termination deeds, not just post-exit ones, can hold up.
