The IR Geek

General Protections Dismissal Claims: What the FWC’s November 2025 Reforms Mean for Employers—and Paid Agents

By Justin@ LevelUp | www.askfrank.com.au

Overview

In November 2025, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) released a significant reform package to deal with the growing complexity and volume of general protections (GP) dismissal claims. With applications up more than 50% this quarter alone, the Commission has moved to streamline procedures, filter out weak claims, and tighten expectations on both parties—particularly paid agents.

These changes aren’t just administrative. They have immediate implications for how employers manage terminations, how representatives engage with the Commission, and how GP claims will be assessed in 2026 and beyond.

This article explains:

• What changed
• Why it matters
• What employers and paid agents must do to adjust

The Context: Volume, Misuse, and a System Under Pressure

In 2024–25, over 6,200 general protections dismissal applications were lodged—27% above the five-year average. In the first quarter of 2025–26 alone, claims rose 57%, with many applications filed by employees ineligible for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act.

According to the Commission, a significant proportion of these claims:

• Were made by employees with less than six months’ service
• Involved vague or unsupported allegations
• Were facilitated by paid agents filing claims without proper legal grounding

This growth has diverted resources away from enterprise bargaining, award reform, and strategic dispute resolution. As a result, the Commission has announced a reset.

What’s Changing

1. New F8 and F8A Forms

Applicants (F8) and Respondents (F8A) must now:

• Clearly state the legal basis for the claim or response (including relevant sections of the Fair Work Act)
• Identify jurisdictional objections upfront
• Justify why legal or paid agent representation is required (referencing s.596 of the Act)
• Specify the conduct that allegedly breached general protections (no more box-ticking)
• Pre-screening of Out-of-Time Claims

Late applications will be filtered by a Commission Member before being served on employers. If the Commission considers there’s no reasonable prospect of an extension (under s.366(2)), the claim won’t proceed—reducing unnecessary legal exposure and wasted effort for respondents.

• Stricter Rules on Paid Representation

Paid agents and lawyers must now request permission to appear at s.368 conferences in their initial lodgment. Permission will be decided on the papers in most cases, with the aim of curbing poor-quality advocacy and tactical claims. The Commission is applying tighter scrutiny following concerns about a small cohort of paid agents responsible for a disproportionate number of low-merit matters.

Anecdotal evidence from the Commission has also highlighted a troubling trend: some paid agents disappear once a matter fails to settle at conciliation, leaving applicants without representation during a critical phase and often saddled with a bill for services already rendered. This raises serious concerns about the ethical and professional standards of some agents operating in this space.

• Revised Conference Model (Under Trial)

A new model is being trialled where the s.368 conference is framed solely as a conciliation forum. It includes an opening statement to set expectations and reduce time lost on technical arguments. Assessment of the trial will conclude shortly, with likely implementation in early 2026.

• Response Time Extension Under Review

Rule 65, which currently requires employers to respond within 7 days, is under review following feedback from small business stakeholders. A consultation process will determine the appropriate extension.

What This Means for Employees

The bar for bringing a GP dismissal claim has also been quietly but decisively lifted. Applicants can no longer rely on vague assertions, box-ticked allegations, or post-dismissal fishing expeditions. If you’re lodging a claim, you now need:

• A clearly articulated legal basis tied to Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act
• Specific allegations, not generic grievances
• To justify any request for paid or legal representation upfront (under s.596)
• To be aware that out-of-time applications will be screened and potentially dismissed before the employer even sees them

This means employees must come prepared—legally, evidentially, and procedurally. Claims without merit or structure may not make it past the starting line.

What This Means for Employers

1. You’re More Likely to Face GP Claims

With many employees excluded from unfair dismissal (due to service thresholds or casual status), GP claims are becoming the fallback—especially where the dismissal follows:

• Flexible work disputes
• Performance management
• Pay, leave or entitlement issues

Expect more claims citing workplace rights and protections under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act.

• Process Will Be Scrutinised—Not Just Outcome

In GP matters, motive matters. A dismissal that looks procedurally fair can still result in liability if linked to a protected workplace right. Documentation and timing must withstand legal review.

• Early Risk Assessment Is Critical

Where a complaint, request, or workplace right is in play, flag the matter for heightened legal risk. Seek advice before taking further action.

• Strengthen Documentation

General protections claims hinge on causation—not procedural fairness. If dismissal was for conduct, performance, or business reasons, ensure this is clearly documented in real time.

What This Means for Paid Agents

The Commission has signalled a crackdown on poor-quality representation:

• Permission to appear under s.596 must be requested early and justified
• Applications and responses must show legal reasoning and merit
• The Commission will refer some claimants to pro bono or community legal services where appropriate

The message is clear: representation must enhance the quality and efficiency of the process—or it will be declined.

Practical Advice for Employers

1. Audit Termination Practices

Review recent and upcoming terminations. Consider:

• Was the employee involved in a prior complaint or dispute?
• Were any workplace rights engaged (e.g., flexible work, pay, leave)?
• Is the timing of the dismissal legally vulnerable?
• Don’t Rely on Policy Alone

Policies are helpful, but they don’t override the Fair Work Act. Managers must understand that policy compliance alone isn’t a defence if the Act has been breached.

• Improve Records and Evidence

Contemporaneous records matter. If you say a dismissal was due to poor performance, that must be evident in documented feedback, warnings, or performance reviews.

• Flag High-Risk Dismissals Early

Where a known complaint or request exists, elevate the matter internally. Apply legal review before proceeding.

Final Word from The IR Geek

These changes aren’t revolutionary—they’re a long-overdue reset.

Let’s call it: the FWC is sick of GP claims being treated like the back door into unfair dismissal. This is a structural course correction—not a tweak. If you’re a paid agent running on volume and vibes, the Commission has just turned the spotlight on your business model. If you can’t add legal rigour or efficiency, you’re out.

Employers, don’t get too comfortable either. If your documentation is thinner than a training manual at a startup, or your managers think ‘the vibe’ is a lawful reason for termination, then buckle up.

Expect fewer slam-dunk conciliations and more scrutiny. The paperwork, the motives, the decision trail—it all matters now. If you don’t have your house in order, your next claim might not just cost you a settlement. It might become a case study.

As for applicants: ask questions before signing with a paid agent. A glossy website and promise of ‘no win no fee’ won’t help you when the agent ghosts after conciliation—and you’re left with no advocate, no pathway to court, and an invoice.

Everyone needs to level up—literally and figuratively.

Employers must treat GP claims as high-risk. Paid agents must lift their game. The Commission is cleaning house—vague, tactical and poorly reasoned claims will be culled.

This isn’t about stopping claims. It’s about ensuring those that do proceed are legally sound and efficiently managed.

Need Help?

LevelUp works with employers and professional representatives to:

• Respond to GP claims
• Conduct risk assessments prior to dismissal
• Train HR and line managers on compliant decision-making
• Defend legitimate decisions before the Commission

Contact www.askfrank.com.au or reach out directly to the LevelUp team.