Bridges v Norling Trading as Itravel Forster

In *Bridges v Norling Trading as Itravel Forster*, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was asked to determine whether it possessed jurisdiction to assess the validity of a certificate issued by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 368(3)(a) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) within the context of a general protections application made pursuant to section 370 of the Act. The applicant, Ms Bridges, had lodged a general protections claim, and the validity of the FWC's certificate, which was a prerequisite for the court's jurisdiction, was challenged.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the validity of the FWC's certificate depended on the applicant having applied to the FWC under section 365 of the Act within the 21-day time limit prescribed by section 366(1)(a) of the Act. This, in turn, required the Court to determine whether the applicant had indeed been dismissed from her employment and, if so, whether that dismissal had taken effect more than 21 days prior to her application to the FWC. The Court also considered whether the employer had repudiated the contract of employment and whether the employee had accepted that repudiation.

Judge Manousaridis reasoned that the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court to hear a general protections claim under section 370 of the *Fair Work Act* is contingent upon the FWC issuing a valid certificate under section 368(3)(a). The Court held that the validity of such a certificate is directly linked to the applicant's compliance with the procedural requirements of the Act, specifically the timely lodging of an application with the FWC. The Court found that the applicant had not been dismissed in a manner that would trigger the relevant timeframes for her application to the FWC, and therefore, the FWC's certificate was not validly issued. Consequently, the Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the general protections claim.