Wayne Seiler v Green Light PS Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 1960

[2025] FWC 1960

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Wayne Seiler
v

Green Light PS Pty Ltd

(C2025/3409)

COMMISSIONER MATHESON

SYDNEY, 9 JULY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

On 26 April 2025 Mr Wayne Seiler (Applicant) filed a Form F8 application (Form F8) for the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with a general protections dispute involving dismissal under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)(Act). The respondent in the matter is Green Light PS Pty Ltd (Respondent).

Section 366(1) of the Act provides that an application under s.365 must be made:

(a)within 21 days after the dismissal took effect; or
(b)within such further period as the Commission allows under s.366(2) of the Act.

The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent on 6 December 2024. It is not in contention that the Applicant was dismissed from his employment with the Respondent a short time thereafter on 10 December 2024. This followed the Respondent’s client, Deloitte, raising concerns about the results of a background check it had caused to be carried out in relation to Applicant. The background check involved, among other things, searching public information sources such as news outlets, websites and databases.

The application was made on 26 April 2025. This is more than 21 days after the dismissal took effect, and the Applicant therefore requires an extension of time if the application is to proceed.

Section 366(2) of the Act provides that the Commission may allow a further period if it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances taking into account:

(a)the reason for the delay; and
(b)any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and
(c)prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(d)the merits of the application; and
(e)fairness between the person and other persons in a like position.

Hearing and submissions

A hearing was held on 3 July 2025 to determine whether an extension of time should be allowed.

The Applicant filed submissions on 10 June 2025, the Respondent filed submissions on 17 June 2025, and the Applicant filed further submissions on 23 June 2025, addressing whether an extension of time should be allowed for the making of the application.

Section 366(2)(a) - the reason for the delay

The Applicant submitted that although he was notified of the dismissal on 10 December 2024, the underlying reasons and supporting documents were not disclosed at that time. In particular, the Applicant submitted that his termination of employment was vaguely attributed to background check results but that the specifics were not disclosed until later and the information remained incomplete until January 2025.

In this regard the Applicant submitted that the reason for the delay was primarily caused by his efforts to obtain and understand the contents of the background checks relied upon for his dismissal. The Applicant submitted that these documents could only be accessed after identifying the relevant third parties and undergoing lengthy…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wayne Seiler v Green Light PS Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Wayne Seiler v Green Light PS Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1960
Case: [2025] FWC 1960
Decision Date: 9 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wayne Seiler filed an application with the Fair Work Commission for an extension of time to lodge a general protections dispute involving his dismissal by Green Light PS Pty Ltd. The application was made more than 21 days after the dismissal took effect, thus requiring an extension of time if the application was to proceed. The Commission considered whether there were exceptional circumstances to allow for the extension. The Applicant argued that he was not provided with details of the background checks until January 2025 and that this delayed his ability to make an application. The Commission found that while the Applicant was not provided with details of the background checks, he was aware of the adverse results by 13 December 2024 and did not dispute the results of the background check since receiving them on 16 January 2025. The Applicant did not take any action to dispute his dismissal between 16 January 2025 and 14 April 2025, a period of almost three months. The Commission found that the Applicant's reasons for the delay did not provide a reasonable or acceptable basis for the delay. The Commission also found that the Applicant had not taken any action to dispute his dismissal and had not provided any evidence that the background check outcome was incorrect. The Commission considered the merits of the application and found that the Applicant had not provided any detail about why he was alleging dismissal on the basis of a workplace right or any other prohibited ground under the general protections framework. The Commission found that the facts of the case were distinguishable from other cases cited by the parties and that there were no exceptional circumstances to allow for an extension of time. The application was dismissed.

Orders