A Mondelez Australia worker who tried to withdraw her unfair dismissal claim and lodge a general protections case in the very same document has lost her bid to revive that case, after a divided Full Bench ruled the two steps could not happen at the same moment.
What the Commission decided
Dorothy Lazenkas was dismissed from her job at Mondelez in November 2025 and first lodged an unfair dismissal application. Weeks later, out of time, she lodged a separate form asking the Commission to deal with a general protections dispute, and wrote on that form that she wished to withdraw her unfair dismissal claim and pursue the general protections case instead. A single Commissioner later dismissed the general protections application, finding that a rule in the Fair Work Act stopped her bringing it because her unfair dismissal claim had not been withdrawn first.
On appeal, the Full Bench split two to one. Vice President Gibian would have allowed the appeal, taking the view that withdrawing the first claim at the exact same time as filing the second was enough to avoid the bar on pursuing both remedies over one dismissal. Deputy President Colman and Deputy President Masson disagreed, holding that the earlier claim had to be withdrawn before the second application was made, not at the same instant. Because the two Deputy Presidents formed the majority, the appeal was dismissed and the general protections case stays dismissed.
What was actually in dispute
The argument turned on a few words in the Fair Work Act saying a person cannot bring a second type of claim over the same dismissal unless their first claim
What this means
This case is a cautionary tale about the strict sequencing rules that apply when a worker wants to switch between an unfair dismissal claim and a general protections claim over the same dismissal, a distinction explored further at unfair dismissal vs general protections.