A Woolworths worker who launched a Fair Work claim after a colleague suggested he cover up his 'plumber's crack' has been torn to shreds in an extraordinary ruling, with a senior tribunal boss blasting the surge of 'unmeritorious' workplace complaints clogging the system.
Anthony Davitkov became upset after a co‑worker told him his butt crack was exposed from his trousers and asked him to cover it up.
The casual employee lodged an application alleging he had been dismissed in breach of his workplace rights under the Act and sought compensation.
In a scathing decision, Fair Work Commission deputy president Alan Colman said the failed case offered a perfect example of the 'speculative claims' fuelling the tribunal's 'burgeoning caseload,' noting it was Mr Davitkov's fifth application in two years.
'Anyone wanting insight into the phenomenon of unmeritorious claims in the Fair Work Commission may wish to consider the case of Anthony Davitkov,' he said.
'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.'
Despite lodging his claim, Mr Davitkov continued working for the supermarket giant at one of its Victorian stores before later stopping his shifts and claiming he had been dismissed.
Woolworths casual Anthony Davitkov became upset after a co-worker told him his butt crack was exposed from his trousers and asked him to cover it up
Fair Work Commission deputy president Alan Colman said the failed case offered a perfect example of the 'speculative claims' fuelling the tribunal's burgeoning caseload
Colman said Mr Davitkov, who had filed five applications in the past two years, was not dismissed and had no standing to make the application.
'This case had nothing to do with dismissal,' he said.
'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.'
Colman said there was no effective disincentive for speculative claims, which had compounded the Commission's 'burgeoning' caseload.
'Unmeritorious claimants have little to lose. This is unfair to respondents who have no case to answer,' he said.
'It is unfair to applicants with cases of substance waiting their turn to be heard.'