The public interest might be attracted where a matter raises issues of importance and general application, or where there is a diversity of decisions at first instance so that guidance from an appellate court is required, or where the decision at first instance manifests an injustice, or the result is counter intuitive, or the legal principles applied appear disharmonious when compared with other recent decisions dealing with similar matters.

There is no exception to the principle that dismissal must be communicated to the employee for purposes of the Fair Work Act.

'Should have been reasonably apparent' must be objectively determined, and a conclusion that an application 'had no reasonable prospect of success' should only be reached with extreme caution in circumstances where the application is manifestly untenable or groundless.

Clauses providing for representation of employees by a union on committees are not objectionable terms merely because union representatives are appointed by the union, provided the clauses do not require or authorise discrimination between union and non-union employees. It is not adverse action for a union to discriminate in favour of its own members and against non-members.

The crucial issue in a general protections application is the causal relationship between adverse action and the protected factor. Mere temporal connection between adverse action and the alleged protected factor does not require the conclusion that there was a causal connection.

A general protections application is not intended to provide an opportunity to raise whatever issues are wished about the validity of steps taken before dismissal. The crucial issue is the causal relationship between adverse action and one or more of the factors mentioned in the various provisions of Pt 3-1, specifically whether the adverse action was taken because the person had a workplace right or had exercised it.

The invalidity of acts amounting to adverse action does not itself establish the existence of the required causal link for the purposes of a general protections application. Proving invalidity of the acts does not establish causation between the action and a workplace right.

Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act operates only to constrain the exercise of the power to terminate employment, to the extent that the exercise amounts to adverse action and a causal relationship exists between that adverse action and one of the factors referred to in the provisions of Pt 3-1.

A general protections application is not intended to provide an opportunity to raise whatever issues about validity of steps taken before dismissal. The crucial issue is the causal relationship between adverse action and factors mentioned in Part 3-1 provisions.

The crucial issue in a general protections application is the causal relationship between adverse action and one or more of the factors mentioned in the various provisions of Part 3-1. The issue is whether the person taking adverse action did so because the person against whom action was taken had the relevant characteristics or did the relevant acts.

The Commission is not required to make a determination that an applicant has been dismissed from their employment as a jurisdictional prerequisite to conducting a s.368 conference on a general protections dismissal dispute.

It is sufficient to give the Commission jurisdiction to conduct a conference under s.368 that a s.365 application states on its face that the applicant has been dismissed and it is alleged that the dismissal was in contravention of Part 3-1.