- Published
Unfair dismissal claims in Australia are not only increasing — they are evolving.
Recent reporting and commentary from the Fair Work Commission (FWC), confirms a sharp rise in applications, alongside a noticeable shift in how claims are being prepared. Increasingly, employees are using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to draft, structure, and “upgrade” their dismissal applications.
For employers, this means one thing:
The risk is no longer just about making a bad decision — it’s about how well your process holds up under scrutiny.
What the FWC is seeing
The Fair Work Commission has reported a significant increase in workload in recent years, with dismissal-related applications (including unfair dismissal and general protections claims) forming a large portion of this growth.
Recent trends show the Commission is handling:
- A higher volume of dismissal-related claims overall
- More self-represented applicants using AI-assisted submissions
- Claims that are formally structured but factually inconsistent
- Greater reliance on documentation to resolve disputes early
Based on FWC reporting:
- Total lodgements have increased from approximately 30,000 per year pre-2023, to over 45,000+ matters in 2024–25.
- With projections moving toward 50,000–55,000 matters annually.
Within that, unfair dismissal and general protections claims are among the fastest growing categories.
What is driving this increase is no longer just workplace turnover or economic conditions — it is also accessibility and technology.
What’s actually driving the increase?
There are three major forces behind the rise in claims:
- Easier access to claims than ever before
Employees can now lodge unfair dismissal applications online in minutes. Costs are minimal, and as is the legal threshold to initiate proceedings.
- AI is changing how claims are written
A growing number of claims are now being prepared using AI tools.
What the Fair Work Commission and industry observers are seeing is:
- Highly structured, formal submissions
- Legal-style wording and references to the Fair Work Act (and occasionally other legislation, which may or may not be relevant to the claim)
- Strongly framed allegations
- But often inconsistent facts or misunderstandings of legal tests
In short: The claims look more serious than they sometimes are — which increases employer pressure early in the process.
This is what has been described in industry commentary as a rise in “polished but low-merit claims.”
- Increased scrutiny of employer process
The Fair Work Commission continues to apply the core test under s 385 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – A dismissal is unfair if:
- The employee was dismissed
- The dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable
- It was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (if applicable)
- It was not a case of genuine redundancy
Even where employers have a valid reason, process failures can still result in findings of unfair dismissal.
The reality employers often miss
Most unfair dismissal outcomes are not decided on whether an employer was “right”.
They turn on whether the employer and their process was:
- clear
- consistent
- documented
- and procedurally fair
And this is where many businesses are exposed.
Genuine Redundancy: Still one of the highest risk areas
Many employers assume redundancy is a safer path. It isn’t, unless it meets the legal definition under s 389 of the Fair Work Act.
A redundancy is only genuine if:
- The role is no longer required due to operational change
- Consultation obligations have been met
- Redeployment within the business (or associated entities) has been properly considered
Where employers run into trouble is when:
- roles are renamed rather than removed
- consultation is brief or undocumented
- redeployment is not genuinely explored
- Award requirements are not followed
In those cases, what was intended as redundancy can still become an unfair dismissal claim.
What this means for employers right now
This is where urgency matters because most businesses are still operating with outdated assumptions about risk.
The reality in 2026 is:
- Terminations are easier to challenge
- Claims are easier to lodge
- AI is making claims more persuasive at first glance
- And the Fair Work Commission is placing heavy weight on process and documentation
So the question is no longer: “Do we have a valid reason?”
It is: “Can we prove every step we took was fair, documented, and defensible, alongside our valid reason?”
What you should be doing differently
If you’re employing people, these are no longer optional:
- Treat every termination as reviewable. Assume it may be scrutinised by the Fair Work Commission.
- Document before, during, and after decisions. If it isn’t written down, it carries little weight in a dispute.
- Follow a structured, procedurally fair process every time. Even in clear performance or misconduct issues.
- Handle redundancy as a compliance process, not a cost decision. Consultation and redeployment are often where cases are won or lost.
