A senior member of the Fair Work Commission has roasted the bringing of a general protections case to the Commssion.
[i]“Application under s 365 – application dismissed
[1] Anyone wanting insight into the phenomenon of unmeritorious claims in the Fair Work
Commission may wish to consider the case of Anthony Davitkov, whose application under s
365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 I dismissed ex tempore earlier today. During a casual shift at
Woolworths, Mr Davitkov was told by a coworker that (and I paraphrase) the cleft of his bottom
was protruding from his trousers. It was suggested, in rude terms, that he cover up. Mr Davitkov
was upset. His feelings were hurt. He lodged an application alleging that he had been dismissed
in breach of his workplace rights under Part 3-1 of the Act. He wanted compensation.
[2] What dismissal? That was what Woolworths wanted to know. It said that Mr Davitkov
continued to work shifts after lodging his claim and that he later stopped turning up for work. I
so find. Mr Davitkov was not dismissed. He had no standing to make the application. This case
had nothing to do with dismissal, or with Part 3-1 of the Act. It was evidently a speculative
claim made in pursuit of a monetary settlement that would spare Woolworths the nuisance of
defending it. I was unable to put this to Mr Davitkov because he ignored my direction to attend
the telephone hearing. I note that this was Mr Davitkov’s fifth application in two years.
[3] Unmeritorious claimants have little to lose. This is unfair to respondents who have no
case to answer. It is unfair to applicants with cases of substance waiting their turn to be heard.
The Act allows costs to be ordered in some cases, but very often there are no compensable
costs, only wasted time. There is no effective disincentive for speculative claims, and so they
come, in great numbers, compounding the Commission’s burgeoning caseload.”
Anthony Davitkov v Woolworths Group Limited – [2026] FWC 1655 delivered 7 May 2026 per Colman DP