Unfair Dismissal and Out-of-Hours Work Metrics: Can dismissal be justified when an employee works beyond rostered hours to lift performance results, then resists performance management and meeting directions?

Introduction (Mandatory Fixed Text) Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Candice Dias v Angle Auto Finance Pty Ltd (U2024/2463) [2025] FWC 47, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Fair Work Commission
Presiding Judge: Commissioner Matheson
Cause of Action: Unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Judgment Date: 10 January 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Unfair dismissal
Keyword 3: Performance improvement plan
Keyword 4: Lawful and reasonable direction
Keyword 5: Working outside rostered hours
Keyword 6: Procedural fairness and right of response

Background

The Applicant worked in a settlements role in a finance business. Her day-to-day performance was tracked through internal systems that measured productivity and quality, with productivity closely tied to time recorded as being “in production”. Over time, the Respondent formed the view that the Applicant’s productivity remained below expectations and below peers. The Respondent then moved into structured performance management, including formal performance improvement plans.

Along the way, a second (and ultimately decisive) thread emerged: the Respondent suspected the Applicant was completing work outside rostered hours while recording time in a way that made it appear as if more work was done within fewer recorded hours. The Respondent treated that as an integrity issue, not just a performance issue, because it affected the reliability of comparative performance metrics and raised health and safety concerns.

This case was not simply about “numbers”. It became a dispute about whether the Respondent was entitled to insist on performance within rostered hours, whether the Applicant truly breached that direction, and whether the Applicant’s engagement with the process made the working relationship untenable.

Core Disputes and Claims

Core legal focus question: Whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable under section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) when the employer relied on:
1) alleged out-of-hours work and time-recording behaviour said to inflate productivity metrics; and
2) repeated non-compliance with meeting directions and performance management steps.

Relief sought: The Applicant sought reinstatement and orders relating to continuity and lost remuneration.

Respondent’s position: The Respondent asserted there was a valid reason related to both conduct and capacity, and that the process was fair: the Applicant was notified of concerns, given opportunities to respond, and repeatedly directed to comply with rostered-hours requirements and attend meetings.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

A workplace relationship often deteriorates slowly, then breaks suddenly. In this matter, the deterioration followed a familiar sequence.

First, the Respondent’s internal performance narrative hardened: the Applicant’s productivity was said to be below minimum expectations and below peers for an extended period. The Respondent’s systems recorded time and tasks, and leadership framed productivity as measurable, comparable, and tied to integrity.

Second, the Applicant’s personal narrative hardened in the opposite direction: she maintained she worked on complex tasks, that data was inconsistent or manipulated, that targets were unreasonable, and that she was singled out.

The decisive moments arose when the Respondent issued an express direction that the Applicant must cease working outside rostered hours, except for approved overtime or authorised departures from rostered hours. That direction was explained in terms of health and wellbeing, fairness to colleagues, and the integrity of performance statistics. The Applicant did not accept that the premise of the direction was fair or consistently applied, and she framed the issue as selective enforcement.

From there, events escalated through formal performance management. The Respondent issued performance improvement plans with weekly productivity and quality targets, and requirements about accurate time and task recording. The Applicant challenged the plans, disputed the data, and objected to management’s reliance on internal reports. Meetings became flashpoints: the Respondent saw meetings as essential to performance management; the Applicant saw meetings as unfair, poorly timed, or unsupported by reliable evidence. The relationship moved from a dispute about performance to a dispute about governance and control: who sets the rules, what data counts, and whether a refusal to engage can itself become a disciplinary problem.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1) The Applicant’s repeated written challenges to the performance improvement plans, asserting she met requirements, performed complex work, and that productivity measures failed to account for task complexity.
2) Assertions that internal data was inconsistent, potentially manipulated, or inaccurately recorded.
3) Explanations that “after-hours completions” could be misattributed in systems due to workflow and quality-check processes, and that approvals by others could make it appear she worked when she did not.
4) Objections to process fairness, including assertions she did not receive certain letters promptly, or lacked system access at key times.
5) A broader narrative that workplace expectations effectively pressured staff to work outside hours, and that she was singled out for compliance enforcement.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1) Internal system design and measurement evidence: productivity counted time recorded “in production”, and the Respondent used a system designed to compare output against time and peer benchmarks.
2) A written direction to cease working outside rostered hours, framed as a lawful and reasonable instruction and connected to health, fairness, and integrity concerns.
3) Performance improvement plan documents: targets for productivity and quality over weeks, and explicit requirements about working within rostered hours.
4) A sequence of allegation and show cause communications about out-of-hours work and meeting attendance, including specific instances (such as a large set of applications said to be finalised outside approved hours).
5) Evidence that meetings were repeatedly scheduled, rescheduled, and not attended, with the Respondent asserting this undermined the feasibility of managing ongoing concerns.

Core Dispute Points

1) Whether the Applicant worked outside rostered hours without approval, and whether this was shown on the balance of probabilities.
2) Whether logging off time-recording systems while continuing to complete work amounted to manipulation of productivity metrics.
3) Whether the employer’s direction to work only within rostered hours was lawful and reasonable in the circumstances, and whether non-compliance could justify termination.
4) Whether the Applicant was notified of the reasons and given a genuine opportunity to respond before dismissal.
5) Whether the employer’s reliance on “unsustainable relationship” reasoning was legitimately connected to the Applicant’s conduct in resisting meetings and performance management.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavit evidence in unfair dismissal matters often reveals more than disputed facts; it reveals litigation strategy.

The Applicant’s affidavit material sought to construct a coherent alternative explanation for the employer’s data: that the numbers were not reliable, that workflows could misattribute completions, and that her approach was consistent with meeting expectations in a pressured environment. The narrative intent was to reframe “out-of-hours work” from misconduct into a symptom of unreasonable systems and inconsistent enforcement.

The Respondent’s affidavit material was structured as an escalation timeline: coaching, warnings, performance plans, specific allegations, show cause opportunity, and ultimately termination due to ongoing underperformance and non-compliance with directions. The narrative intent was to show the Respondent did not “jump to dismissal”, but rather followed a step-by-step consequence management process. It also aimed to anchor the dismissal to conduct and capacity, emphasising repeated directions and the Applicant’s resistance to engagement.

Strategically, the Respondent’s procedural stance regarding affidavits and evidence served a clear purpose: narrow the factual disputes to what could be proven from system logs, written directions, and documentary communications, rather than turning the case into a broad workplace culture inquiry. That approach matters in the Fair Work Commission context because section 387 focuses on the fairness of the dismissal decision, not the ideal design of workplace performance systems.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing, the proceeding involved procedural arrangements typical of a contested unfair dismissal matter:

1) Directions for filing evidence (witness statements and supporting documents).
2) Arrangements for a multi-day hearing due to volume and contested facts.
3) Management of document production issues, including significant materials and interlocutory handling.
4) Permission decision regarding legal representation for the Respondent in a contested and document-heavy matter.
5) Post-hearing written closing submissions to allow structured argument with reference to the transcript and documentary record.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The hearing unfolded as a collision between two incompatible worldviews about performance management.

The Applicant’s cross-examination themes pushed at:
1) data reliability;
2) whether the Respondent’s systems could accurately attribute out-of-hours completions to her;
3) whether the Respondent applied rostered-hours rules consistently; and
4) whether the performance targets were realistic.

The Respondent’s cross-examination themes pushed at:
1) the Applicant’s awareness of rostered hours and written directions;
2) why she did not promptly challenge certain written directions if she truly disputed them;
3) whether her explanations were consistent over time; and
4) her pattern of declining, postponing, or not attending meetings designed to address the allegations and performance plan outcomes.

On credibility, the Commission focused on what could be anchored in documentary evidence: written directions, the structure of performance plans, and the timeline of repeated meeting attempts. In practical terms, the hearing became less about whether the Applicant “worked hard” and more about whether she complied with governance rules that made productivity comparisons meaningful.

Core Evidence Confrontation

Three pieces of evidence became decisive in the evidentiary confrontation:

1) The written direction requiring the Applicant to cease working outside rostered hours, except for approved overtime or authorised exceptions. The Respondent framed this as essential to integrity and fairness in performance measurement.

2) The allegation sequence, which treated repeated out-of-hours finalisation and time-recording behaviour as willful conduct inconsistent with integrity expectations.

3) The meeting-direction record: repeated requests to attend meetings, repeated delays, medical certificates around scheduled meetings, and non-attendance at outcome meetings. This became central to the “unsustainable relationship” reasoning.

Judicial Reasoning

The Commission approached the reasoning through the statutory lens of section 387. It assessed whether there was a valid reason related to conduct or capacity, whether the Applicant was notified of that reason, whether she had an opportunity to respond, and whether the overall dismissal decision was harsh, unjust or unreasonable when all factors were weighed.

The Commission’s determinative conclusion can be captured in the following passage.

“Having considered each of the matters specified in section 387 of the FW Act, I am satisfied that the dismissal of the Applicant was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable because: there was a valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal based on her conduct, most pertinently the Applicant’s failure to comply with the multiple lawful and reasonable directions given to her to work only within her rostered hours. There were cogent reasons for the provision of this direction including health and well-being considerations, fairness to peers in an environment where performance is measured relative to peers completing work in productive time, and a reasonable desire to accurately measure performance; the Applicant was notified of the allegations that had been made about her conduct, with such conduct ultimately constituting a valid reason for dismissal, and was given an opportunity to respond to them; the Applicant’s behaviour was such that it is apparent that she was not receptive to the direction given to her, securing her participation in meetings to discuss concerns was highly challenging and she was unlikely to participate in the Respondent’s performance and disciplinary processes in a constructive manner. It was apparent that the continuation of her employment was not sustainable in these circumstances.”

Why this statement was determinative: it connects all the legal elements into one integrated chain. It identifies the valid reason (non-compliance with rostered-hours directions), explains why the direction was lawful and reasonable (health, fairness, accurate measurement), confirms notice and opportunity to respond, and then links the Applicant’s pattern of engagement to the feasibility of continued employment. It is the full “closure” of the section 387 analysis.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Commission dismissed the application. It determined the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed within the meaning of section 385 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) because the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable after weighing the section 387 factors.

In practical terms, the outcome meant:
1) no reinstatement; and
2) no compensation or continuity orders.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This decision has jurisprudential value well beyond an ordinary performance-plan dispute because it squarely addresses a modern workplace tension: digital performance systems can be both a management tool and a litigation battleground. When productivity is calculated by time-in-production, and time is recorded through workforce management platforms, the question of “working outside hours” is no longer just about overtime—it becomes about the integrity of measurement.

The Commission treated the rostered-hours direction as more than a managerial preference. It was anchored to concrete justifications that courts and tribunals routinely recognise as legitimate:
1) employee health and wellbeing;
2) fairness to colleagues where performance is assessed relative to peers; and
3) accurate measurement in systems where recorded time is the denominator for productivity.

A second jurisprudential feature is the Commission’s practical insistence that performance management must be manageable. When an employee’s participation in meetings and processes becomes persistently difficult, the Commission may accept “unsustainable working relationship” reasoning as connected to conduct and capacity, rather than as a vague slogan, provided it is grounded in evidence of repeated non-engagement.

Finally, the decision contains a cautionary modern note about unreliable legal authorities generated from non-credible sources. The Commission treated that as a procedural integrity issue: parties must ensure legal citations are real and relevant, particularly in an era where artificial intelligence tools can generate convincing but false references.

Judgment Points

1) The Commission framed the rostered-hours direction as lawful and reasonable because it served multiple legitimate employer interests, not merely productivity. The breadth of justification mattered: health, fairness, and measurement integrity formed a coherent basis.

2) The Commission distinguished between “working hard” and “working in a way that preserves integrity of measurement”. Even sincere effort can be misconduct if it involves time-recording behaviour that inflates metrics.

3) The Commission viewed documentary evidence as central. Written directions, written allegation letters, and the timeline of meeting invitations were treated as reliable anchors for factual findings.

4) The Commission treated the Applicant’s engagement pattern as relevant to sustainability. Repeated difficulty in securing meeting participation was not merely “procedural noise”; it became part of the valid reason narrative because it impaired the employer’s capacity to manage performance concerns.

5) The Commission emphasised that the proceeding was an unfair dismissal matter, not a general protections claim. Allegations of retaliation or whistleblower victimisation were assessed through that lens, and the Commission was not satisfied the dismissal was because of whistleblowing.

Legal Basis

The statutory centre of gravity was the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth):

1) Section 394: jurisdictional foundation for an unfair dismissal remedy application.
2) Section 385: definition of unfair dismissal (dismissal; harsh, unjust or unreasonable; not small business code; not genuine redundancy).
3) Section 387: mandatory criteria for assessing harshness, injustice, or unreasonableness, including valid reason, notification, opportunity to respond, warnings, and other relevant matters.
4) Section 390: remedies (available only if protected and unfairly dismissed).
5) Section 382: protection threshold (minimum employment period and award coverage or earnings threshold).

The Commission also relied on established authority on “valid reason” and the Commission’s role: a valid reason must be sound, defensible or well founded, and the Commission does not substitute its own preference for managerial decision-making where the employer’s reason is lawfully grounded.

Evidence Chain

Victory Point 1: The written rostered-hours direction created a clear compliance benchmark.
– Evidence feature: the direction set specific rostered hours, limited exceptions, and foreshadowed disciplinary consequences for non-compliance.
– Legal significance: clarity and specificity are powerful in section 387(a) reasoning because they reduce ambiguity about what the employee was required to do.

Victory Point 2: The employer linked the direction to legitimate and tribunal-recognised purposes.
– Evidence feature: the direction was framed around health and wellbeing, fairness to peers, and integrity of performance metrics.
– Legal significance: “lawful and reasonable” is not established by command alone; it is established by reasoned connection to legitimate workplace objectives.

Victory Point 3: The employer built a chronology that looked procedurally patient rather than impulsive.
– Evidence feature: informal coaching, then a first performance plan, then warning, then second performance plan, then allegations, then show cause.
– Legal significance: even where a valid reason exists, the overall fairness analysis under section 387 is strengthened when steps show escalation and opportunities to improve.

Victory Point 4: The employer repeatedly gave notice of concerns and chances to respond.
– Evidence feature: allegation communication, request for responses, show cause opportunity, and scheduled outcome meetings.
– Legal significance: section 387(b) and section 387(c) focus on notification and opportunity to respond. Where the record shows notice and opportunities, arguments about unfair surprise tend to weaken.

Victory Point 5: The meeting-direction evidence supported “unsustainable relationship” reasoning.
– Evidence feature: repeated invitations and non-attendance at outcome meetings, with the Respondent asserting it could not progress the process without engagement.
– Legal significance: a dismissal reason tied to failure to comply with lawful and reasonable meeting directions can be accepted where meetings are genuinely connected to performance and disciplinary processes.

Victory Point 6: The Commission treated the matter as a blend of capacity and conduct, which widened the valid-reason foundation.
– Evidence feature: the Respondent’s case was not confined to “you failed a target”; it also asserted misconduct by working in a way that undermined measurement integrity and by resisting process.
– Legal significance: a dual foundation often makes section 387(a) reasoning more resilient, because if one limb is disputed the other may still support validity.

Victory Point 7: The Commission made credibility findings against improbable explanations.
– Evidence feature: the Commission considered certain denials or non-engagement explanations improbable when set against continuing communications and documented warnings.
– Legal significance: in unfair dismissal matters, credibility findings can decide close factual contests, especially where system access, timing, and knowledge are disputed.

Victory Point 8: The Commission separated the unfair dismissal question from side disputes (such as underpayment assertions).
– Evidence feature: the Commission noted it was not making findings on underpayment allegations and pointed to other avenues.
– Legal significance: keeping the unfair dismissal inquiry focused prevents broader grievances from distorting the section 387 analysis.

Judicial Original Quotation

The determinative ratio can be expressed again through the Commission’s own words, because it is the clearest articulation of the “Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory Provisions” logic:

“There was a valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal based on her conduct, most pertinently the Applicant’s failure to comply with the multiple lawful and reasonable directions given to her to work only within her rostered hours. There were cogent reasons for the provision of this direction including health and well-being considerations, fairness to peers in an environment where performance is measured relative to peers completing work in productive time, and a reasonable desire to accurately measure performance.”

Why it matters: This passage shows the Commission’s method. It does not treat the direction as an employer whim. It assesses the direction’s purpose and connects it to fairness and integrity of measurement—concepts that tribunals treat as legitimate. It then uses that foundation to validate dismissal as a proportionate response to non-compliance.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

1) The Applicant’s case depended heavily on contesting data integrity but struggled to displace documentary anchors: written directions, written warnings, and the structured sequence of allegations and show cause steps. Where the documentary record is coherent, a general claim of “manipulated data” must be supported by precise and provable inconsistencies.

2) The Applicant’s explanations for out-of-hours work and system attribution were treated as insufficiently persuasive against the Respondent’s core allegation: logging off the time-recording platform while continuing to complete tasks undermined the integrity of productivity measurement. In a system where productivity is calculated as output over recorded production time, that behavioural pattern is likely to be treated as serious.

3) The Applicant’s resistance to meetings and process steps weakened the procedural fairness argument. A party may be entitled to a support person and to reasonable adjustments, but repeated non-attendance at outcome meetings can be framed as non-compliance with lawful and reasonable directions, which then becomes part of the valid reason analysis.

4) The attempt to broaden the matter into whistleblowing retaliation did not succeed within the unfair dismissal frame. In practice, if a party alleges retaliation, that allegation must align with the legal vehicle being run and must be supported by evidence of causation.

5) Reliance on non-existent or incorrect legal authorities undermines credibility and can distract from the actual statutory tests. In contested proceedings, accuracy of legal citations is not a cosmetic detail; it affects trustworthiness of submissions.

Implications

1) If your workplace measures performance through digital time-and-task systems, your method of working matters as much as your output. Even high effort can backfire if it undermines the integrity of measurement.

2) A direction that protects wellbeing and fairness can be lawful and reasonable even if it feels inconvenient. The tribunal will often ask: does the direction have a coherent workplace purpose?

3) Performance management is a process, not a single moment. When warnings and plans are documented, the paper trail will often decide what the tribunal accepts as “fair”.

4) If you dispute the data, dispute it with precision. Identify specific entries, specific discrepancies, and specific technical explanations that can be tested, rather than relying on broad allegations.

5) Do not treat meetings as optional when they are tied to performance and disciplinary outcomes. If you need accommodations, propose workable alternatives that still allow engagement—because repeated non-engagement can itself become a reason relied upon.

Q&A Session

Q1: If an employer says “do not work outside rostered hours”, can an employee still do so at home to meet targets?
A1: It tends to be high risk. If the direction is lawful and reasonable and clearly communicated, working beyond rostered hours without approval can be treated as misconduct, particularly where performance metrics are affected by time-recording practices.

Q2: What if the employee believes targets are unrealistic and the only way to meet them is to work longer?
A2: The safer pathway is to raise the concern formally and seek a workload review, training, reallocation, or revised targets. Quietly working extra hours may appear helpful, but it can create compliance and integrity issues—especially if it affects how the employer measures productivity.

Q3: What should an employee do if they believe employer data is wrong?
A3: Bring specific examples, request the source data where possible, and propose a structured review. A general claim of “manipulation” without testable detail is often less persuasive than a targeted demonstration of error.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

Employment and Workplace Disputes: Unfair Dismissal involving performance improvement plans, rostered-hours compliance, time-recording integrity, and non-compliance with meeting directions.

Judgment Nature Definition

Final Judgment (decision on the merits dismissing the unfair dismissal application).

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

③ Employment and Workplace Disputes (Industrial Relations Law)

Core Test: Unfair Dismissal under the Fair Work Act

Step 1: Identify whether the person is protected from unfair dismissal
– Confirm the minimum employment period has been completed.
– Confirm coverage by a modern award or enterprise agreement, or that earnings are below the high income threshold.
– Practical note: protection is a threshold question; without it, the merits do not proceed.

Step 2: Confirm a dismissal occurred
– Termination on the employer’s initiative qualifies.
– Constructive dismissal can qualify where resignation is forced by employer conduct, but that requires careful proof.

Step 3: Apply the statutory fairness question: was the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?
This requires structured consideration of section 387 factors, including:

A) Valid reason related to capacity or conduct
– Capacity often involves ongoing inability to meet role requirements, including sustained underperformance.
– Conduct involves breach of policies, directions, or integrity standards.
– A valid reason tends to be determined where the reason is sound, defensible and well founded, and where alleged conduct is proven on evidence.

B) Notification of the reason
– The employee should be informed of the reasons before the termination decision is made.
– The information should be plain and clear, not vague or implied.

C) Opportunity to respond
– The employee should have a real opportunity to give their side of the story.
– A refusal to engage can reduce the practical force of later claims that there was “no opportunity”.

D) Support person considerations
– The employer should not unreasonably refuse a support person where dismissal discussions occur.
– However, delays must still remain workable, and alternative arrangements should be practical.

E) Prior warnings if the dismissal relates to unsatisfactory performance
– The tribunal often expects some warning and a chance to improve before dismissal for performance reasons, though the exact expectation depends on context and seriousness.

F) Size of enterprise and HR capability
– Larger employers are generally expected to have more structured processes, though this factor does not erase a valid reason.

G) Any other relevant matters
– This can include health impacts, length of service, differential treatment, and integrity concerns, but these factors rarely override proven serious misconduct.

Core Test: General Protections (for context only)

• Was adverse action taken because the employee exercised a workplace right?
• Practical note: this is a different statutory pathway, often involving different evidentiary dynamics. It tends to be determined under its own legal test, not by re-labelling an unfair dismissal claim.

Core Test: Sham Contracting (for completeness only)

• Is the worker truly an independent contractor or, in substance, an employee?
• Practical note: relevant where the employment relationship itself is disputed, which was not the central issue here.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Even where a person runs an unfair dismissal matter, alternative or parallel legal avenues can sometimes be considered, depending on facts:

Procedural Fairness (Administrative Law analogy, limited relevance in FWC merits)

• In employment contexts, “procedural fairness” is usually addressed through section 387 factors rather than judicial review concepts.
• However, if a decision is made by a statutory decision-maker in another context, natural justice principles may apply.

Ancillary Claims

A) If an unfair dismissal claim fails, could the facts support a general protections claim?
– This depends on whether the employee can show the dismissal was because of a protected attribute or exercise of a workplace right.
– It tends to be high risk to assume this without clear evidence of causation.

B) Underpayment and wage claims
– If there is credible evidence of unpaid wages or unpaid overtime, separate mechanisms exist, and complaints can be made to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
– Success depends on records, award coverage, contractual terms, and whether hours were authorised or recorded.

C) Misleading representations in performance metrics
– Generally, disputes about internal metrics are addressed through unfair dismissal tests rather than consumer-style remedies.
– A more realistic pathway is to seek disclosure and challenge the factual basis within the proceeding where relevant.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• Unfair dismissal application time limit: 21 days after the dismissal took effect.
• Minimum employment period: usually 6 months for non-small business employers, longer where small business thresholds apply.
• Coverage thresholds: modern award, enterprise agreement, or earnings below the high income threshold.

Exceptional Channels

• Extension of time for late filing can be granted in limited circumstances, but it tends to be determined strictly and depends on explanation, prejudice, and merits.
• Medical issues may be relevant, but they must be supported by evidence explaining why filing could not occur in time.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this authority in submissions involving:
– whether a direction restricting work to rostered hours is lawful and reasonable when tied to wellbeing, fairness, and integrity of performance measurement;
– how out-of-hours work and time-recording behaviour can be treated as misconduct;
– how repeated non-engagement with meeting directions can support “unsustainable relationship” reasoning within section 387 analysis.

Citation Method

As Positive Support:
– Where your matter involves clear written directions, documented performance processes, and evidence that out-of-hours work undermined measurement integrity, this authority can strengthen the argument that dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
– If the opposing party cites this authority, you should emphasise unique features such as: lack of clear written direction, ambiguity in rostered hours, genuine approval for additional hours, credible evidence disproving alleged metric manipulation, or an employer’s refusal to provide any real opportunity to respond.

Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Applicant / Respondent or Appellant / Respondent.

---

Conclusion

This decision shows how modern performance systems turn “time” into evidence. Where an employer issues a clear, lawful and reasonable direction to work within rostered hours, and links it to wellbeing, fairness, and accurate measurement, non-compliance can become a valid reason for dismissal—especially where the employee’s participation in corrective processes becomes persistently unworkable.

Golden Sentence: Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Fair Work Commission (Candice Dias v Angle Auto Finance Pty Ltd (U2024/2463) [2025] FWC 47), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.