Alexandru Mihailescu v Joy Global Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1990

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Alexandru Mihailescu v Joy Global Australia Pty Ltd (U2026/7573) DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN CANBERRA, 2 JUNE 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy [1] This decision concerns an application lodged by Mr Alexandru Mihailescu (Applicant) pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 seeking a remedy in respect of his alleged unfair dismissal from Joy Global Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent). [2] The Applicant’s employment was terminated on 1 April 2026 and his application lodged on 28 April 2026 was 6 days outside the 21-day period prescribed by s.394(2) of the Act and can only proceed if the Commission granted an extension of time. [3] The Commission subsequently issued Directions for the filing of submissions, witness statements and any other documentary material to address whether an extension of time should be granted. [4] The Directions required the Applicant to file and serve his material by 4:00 pm on 21 May 2026. The Applicant failed to comply with those Directions. [5] On 25 May 2026, the Commission wrote to the Applicant noting his non-compliance and directing him to file the required material by 9:00 am on 26 May 2026. The Applicant was advised that a failure to comply, in the absence of a reasonable explanation, may result in the dismissal of his application. [6] The Applicant did not respond to that correspondence and did not file any material. [7] On 22 May 2026, further correspondence was sent to the Applicant advising that I would consider dismissing the application pursuant to s.587 of the Act. The Applicant was invited to provide a response by 29 May 2026 explaining why the application should not be dismissed. [8] No response has been received from the Applicant. [9] I have determined to consider whether the application should be dismissed pursuant to s 587(1) of the Act, which provides: [2026] FWC 1990 DECISION -- 1 of 2 -- [2026] FWC 1990 2 587 Dismissing applications (1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if: (a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or (b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or (c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success. [10] Section 394(2) of the Act requires an application for an unfair dismissal remedy to be made within 21 days after the dismissed took effect, or within such period as the Commission allows under s.394(3). [11] The Commission may extend the period within which an unfair dismissal application must be made only if it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. [12] In the absence of any submissions or evidence from the Applicant addressing the delay in filing the application, I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time. I therefore decline to grant an extension of time under s.394(3) of the Act. [13] As the application was not made within the period required by s.394(2) of the Act and no extension of time has been granted, the application was not made in accordance with the Act and has no reasonable prospects of success. Further, the Applicant has failed to comply with the Commission’s Directions and has not responded to correspondence in respect of the continuation of the matter. In these circumstances, I have determined to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. [14] An order dismissing the application will be issued with this decision. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR810540> -- 2 of 2 --