General Protections (GP) claims continue to rise at a pace that is outstripping other Fair Work Commission (FWC) applications, prompting procedural changes from both the Commission and the Federal Court.
Over the past five years, GP dismissal-related applications have increased by 27%. In November 2025 alone, 967 GP applications were lodged, representing a 75% increase in a single month.
While unfair dismissal applications remain the most common form of lodgement, GP claims are growing at a much faster rate. Notably, around half of GP dismissal applications would not meet the 21-day qualifying period required for an unfair dismissal claim.
FWC President, Justice Hatcher, has observed that GP claims are increasingly being used as a substitute for unfair dismissal applications. The availability of uncapped compensation in GP matters is also considered a key driver behind this trend.
How the Fair Work Commission is responding
In response to the sustained increase in GP applications, the FWC is responding with a number of procedural changes aimed at improving efficiency and early case management:
- Legal representation requests will now be determined before a conference takes place. Importantly, the Commission is increasingly taking the view that representation should not be allowed unless for particularly complex matters as representation typically ‘complicates’ matters.
- Out-of-time applications (lodged outside the 21-day limit) to be dealt with without a hearing and before the application is served on the employer.
- Applicants are now required to clearly describe the alleged contraventions, rather than relying on tick-box options.
- Employers must identify and explain any objections directly in their response.
- The FWC is also considering extending the Form F8A response timeframe for small business employers beyond the current 7 days.
Separately, following a successful pilot, the Federal Court has made permanent a national General Protections list. Under this model, court registrars can undertake early case management, including:
- Referring matters to mediation
- Managing procedural or interlocutory issues
- Referring claims to the Federal Circuit and Family Court where appropriate
before allocation to a docket judge.
Commentary – what this means in practice for employers
Most of these changes are likely to be welcomed by employers.
Allowing the Commission to dismiss clearly out-of-time matters before they are even served reduces unnecessary stress, cost and disruption. Likewise, giving employers more time to respond, rather than the tight 7-day turnaround, is a practical and reasonable step. And requiring the employee to at least provide detail of the grounds for their claim rather than just ticking a box that says ‘discrimination’ will at least give employers something more concrete to respond to.
However, one aspect of the reforms presents a more complex challenge.
GP matters are inherently more complex than unfair dismissal claims. They are more prescriptive in how cases are run, often requiring formal submissions, evidence and witness statements. For many business owners, this is not familiar territory.
Against that backdrop, the additional procedural hurdles around obtaining permission for representation for employers may be counter-productive. While the intention may be to streamline proceedings, discouraging representation in a jurisdiction that is already legally and procedurally demanding risks placing employers – particularly small and medium businesses – at a disadvantage.
If the objective is to improve efficiency and fairness, there is a strong argument that reform should start by acknowledging the complexity of GP matters, rather than making them harder for parties to be properly supported through the process.
The strongest defence starts long before a claim is filed.
As GP claims continue to grow, employers should be mindful that everyday people decisions can later be scrutinised through a highly technical legal lens. Accessing advice early can help identify potential minefields, manage risk proactively, and ensure decisions are supported by sound process and documentation.
In many cases, prevention is not only preferable – it is far more effective than cure.