You Cannot Run Two Dismissal Claims at Once: Fair Work Commission Applies s 725 Multiple Applications Rule

23 hours ago

7 min read

Charlou Albores v The Trustee for NHM Unit Trust [2026] FWC 3520

Fair Work Commission – Deputy President Beaumont – 16 September 2026

A recent Fair Work Commission decision provides a practical reminder that an employee cannot simply lodge both an unfair dismissal application and a general protections dismissal application arising from the same termination and allow both matters to proceed.

In Charlou Albores v The Trustee for NHM Unit Trust [2026] FWC 3520, the Commission dismissed a general protections application because the applicant had already lodged an unfair dismissal application concerning the same dismissal.

The decision turns on the operation of section 725 of the Fair Work Act 2009, sometimes referred to as the “general rule” against multiple applications.

For employees deciding how to challenge a dismissal, the case contains a simple but important lesson:

Choosing the correct cause of action at the beginning matters.

An unfair dismissal claim and a general protections dismissal claim are not merely two different forms for the same dispute. They are different statutory causes of action with different legal tests, remedies and procedural consequences.

What Happened?

The applicant, Charlou Albores, first lodged an unfair dismissal application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act on 23 February 2026.

That application concerned the applicant's dismissal by the relevant aged-care employer.

The unfair dismissal application was subsequently dismissed by Deputy President O'Keefe on 2 April 2026 in:

Charles Albores v Aegis Age Care Shorline [2026] FWC 1157.

However, while the first application was still on foot, the applicant lodged a second claim.

On 9 March 2026, the applicant lodged an application under s 365 of the Fair Work Act, alleging general protections contraventions involving dismissal.

Crucially, both applications concerned:

the same dismissal event;
the same applicant; and
effectively the same respondent, notwithstanding a different entity name appearing in the second application.

The Commission noted that the respondent named in the second application had the same ABN as the respondent in the first application.

Charlou Albores v The Trustee for NHM Unit Trust [2026] FWC 3520

The Problem: Section 725 of the Fair Work Act

The applicant ran into the statutory rule contained in s 725.

Deputy President Beaumont described this as the:

“general rule” against multiple applications.

The practical effect is that where a person has commenced one type of dismissal proceeding, the Fair Work Act can prevent that person from pursuing another dismissal proceeding arising from the same termination.

The Commission had therefore identified a jurisdictional problem almost immediately.

Commission staff wrote to the applicant on 16 March 2026, explaining that two applications were before the Commission and that s 725 prevented the second application from continuing.

The applicant was invited to discontinue the second application.

They did not do so.

The Commission Gave the Applicant Several Opportunities to Respond

An important feature of the case is that the Commission did not immediately dismiss the second application.

The applicant was repeatedly warned.

First, Commission staff contacted the applicant on 16 March 2026.

The applicant was told that the second application appeared to be barred by s 725 and that the Commission might dismiss it under s 587(1)(a) if no response was received.

The matter was then allocated to Deputy President Beaumont's Chambers because the second application had been lodged while the first remained on foot.

Chambers contacted the applicant again on 21 April 2026 and explained the problem.

Again, the applicant was invited to discontinue.

Again, there was no response.

Due to an administrative oversight, the matter was not followed up until 7 September 2026, when the Commission contacted the applicant again and expressly invited submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed.

Still no submissions were filed.

The Commission's Power to Dismiss Under s 587

The second statutory provision that mattered was s 587 of the Fair Work Act.

Section 587 gives the Fair Work Commission power, in appropriate circumstances, to dismiss an application.

Deputy President Beaumont was satisfied that the applicant had been given a proper opportunity to put forward any case against dismissal.

The Commission therefore exercised its power under s 587(1)(a) and dismissed the second application because it had not been made in accordance with s 725.

Authority Relied Upon: Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd

The main authority expressly referred to in the decision was:

Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302

Deputy President Beaumont referred to paragraphs [15]–[16] of that decision, together with the authorities cited there, when considering whether the applicant had been given a proper opportunity to put forward their position before the Commission dismissed the matter.

How Bond v Carbridge was used

The authority was not used to determine whether s 725 applied.

Instead, it was used in relation to procedural fairness before dismissal under s 587.

In practical terms, the principle is straightforward:

Before the Commission dismisses an application without a substantive hearing, the applicant should ordinarily have a fair opportunity to explain why the application should not be dismissed.

That occurred here.

The applicant was contacted multiple times, warned of the possible dismissal and invited to make submissions.

The applicant did not respond.

Accordingly, the Commission was satisfied that there was no procedural unfairness in determining the matter on the papers.

Unfair Dismissal vs General Protections: Why the Choice Matters

This decision is particularly useful because many employees understandably think:

“I was unfairly dismissed and I was dismissed for an unlawful reason, so I should lodge both applications.”

That approach can create serious difficulties.

An unfair dismissal application under s 394 generally examines whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, subject to the eligibility requirements in the Fair Work Act.

A general protections dismissal application under s 365 concerns allegations that adverse action, including dismissal, occurred because of a prohibited reason—for example because an employee exercised a workplace right or possessed a protected attribute or engaged in protected industrial activity.

Those are different legal inquiries.

The Fair Work Act therefore contains provisions designed to prevent multiple statutory proceedings being pursued over the same dismissal.

The Practical Lesson: Choose the Right Application Before You File

The most important practical lesson from Albores is this:

Do not treat the choice between unfair dismissal and general protections as a paperwork decision.

Before filing, an employee should identify:

why the employment actually ended;
whether there is evidence of a prohibited reason;
whether the employee satisfies unfair dismissal eligibility requirements;
what remedy the employee is seeking;
what evidence exists to prove the allegations; and
which statutory pathway best matches the facts.

Filing the wrong application can create substantial problems.

Filing multiple applications is not necessarily a safe way of preserving every possible argument.

A Simple Example

Suppose an employee is dismissed after repeatedly complaining about unpaid overtime.

There may be two possible ways to characterise the dispute.

Unfair dismissal

The employee may argue:

“The employer had no valid reason to dismiss me and the process was unfair.”

General protections

The employee may instead allege:

“I was dismissed because I complained about my workplace entitlement to overtime.”

The second argument potentially raises a workplace right issue.

But that does not mean the employee should automatically lodge both claims.

The statutory multiple-applications rules must be considered first.

Naming the Employer Differently Will Not Necessarily Avoid the Rule

Another useful feature of Albores concerns the identity of the respondent.

The first application named one employer entity.

The second application named The Trustee for NHM Unit Trust.

However, the Commission looked beyond the different naming and observed that the respondent had the same ABN as the respondent to the earlier application.

The practical lesson is significant.

Changing the way the employer is described does not necessarily transform the dispute into a different proceeding if, in substance, it concerns:

the same employment relationship;
the same dismissal; and
the same employing entity.

Substance matters.

Ignoring Commission Correspondence Is Dangerous

There is another important procedural lesson.

The applicant was contacted several times.

The Commission explained:

the existence of the jurisdictional problem;
the operation of s 725;
the possibility of voluntary discontinuance;
the possibility of dismissal under s 587; and
the opportunity to file submissions opposing dismissal.

The applicant did not respond.

That left the Commission with no alternative argument to consider.

A person involved in Fair Work Commission proceedings should therefore treat every Commission communication seriously.

Failure to respond can result in important rights being determined without a conference or hearing.

What Does “Determined on the Papers” Mean?

The decision records that the matter was:

“determined on the papers.”

That means the Commission decided the jurisdictional issue by reviewing the written material rather than conducting an oral hearing.

This is particularly common where:

the relevant facts are clear;
the issue is procedural or jurisdictional;
the applicant has been invited to respond;
no contrary submissions are filed; and
an oral hearing is unnecessary.

Employees should therefore never assume that doing nothing means nothing will happen.

The Commission can, in appropriate circumstances, determine an issue without the parties physically appearing.

The Decision

Deputy President Beaumont ultimately found:

the applicant had already commenced an unfair dismissal application;
the subsequent s 365 general protections application concerned the same dismissal;
the applicant was precluded from pursuing the second application by s 725;
the applicant had been given adequate opportunities to respond;
the second application had not been made in accordance with s 725; and
it was appropriate to dismiss it under s 587(1)(a).

The general protections application was therefore dismissed.

Key Takeaways for Employees

1. Get the jurisdiction right before lodging

An unfair dismissal claim and a general protections dismissal claim are not interchangeable.

2. Do not assume you can lodge both

The Fair Work Act contains specific restrictions against multiple dismissal applications.

3. The same dismissal is the key issue

Changing the description of the respondent or pleading the facts differently may not avoid the statutory prohibition.

4. Respond to the Commission

Ignoring correspondence can result in an application being dismissed without an oral hearing.

5. General protections and unfair dismissal involve different tests

A dismissal that appears unfair does not automatically establish a general protections contravention—and vice versa.

6. Obtain an early case assessment

The strongest application should usually be identified before the 21-day filing period expires, rather than attempting to correct the jurisdiction later.

Why Albores Matters

Charlou Albores v The Trustee for NHM Unit Trust [2026] FWC 3520 is not a lengthy decision, but its practical significance is substantial.

It demonstrates that Fair Work Commission dismissal applications require more than simply choosing the form that sounds closest to the employee's complaint.

The correct jurisdiction must be identified from the facts.

That assessment should happen at the beginning of the dispute.

The decision also demonstrates that the Commission will provide procedural fairness before dismissing an application—but where a party repeatedly declines to respond, the Commission may proceed to determine the matter without them.

The broader message is straightforward:

One dismissal does not automatically mean multiple Fair Work claims can be run at the same time.

Before commencing proceedings, identify the cause of action, identify the evidence and choose the statutory pathway carefully.