The gaps between her shifts told the Commission everything it needed to know
A casual school worker who worked 19 shifts in a year wasn't protected from unfair dismissal - her work was too irregular to count.
The Fair Work Commission has dismissed an unfair dismissal claim from a casual education support worker, finding she never built up the regular service that would have made her eligible to bring one.
The worker joined Benalla P-12 College's casual pool in March 2025 after asking about support roles while she studied teaching. No role was open, so the school added her to its “Emergency Education Support list.” She signed no written contract.
Over almost a full year she worked 19 days, starting on March 24, 2025 and finishing with a shift on March 13, 2026. Her employment ended that month. Between those dates the gaps ran long - a cluster of shifts in May, then quiet stretches with no work at all.
She had made clear she wanted to keep going. In June 2025, staff were emailed forms about their plans for 2026, and she returned hers asking for part-time work on the same campus. She heard nothing back. When she followed up in December, the school's human resources manager replied that they had her “down as a casual employee” and that another staff member “will certainly call you if she required a replacement.”
For HR teams, the case turns on a distinction that is easy to miss: time on the books is not the same as protected service.
Under the Fair Work Act, a casual's service counts toward the minimum employment period - the qualifying stretch a worker must complete before they can claim unfair dismissal - only if they were a “regular casual employee” with a reasonable expectation of ongoing, regular and systematic work throughout.
The Commission found that neither part was satisfied. Nineteen engagements across nearly a year were too few to show regularity, and the gaps were too long and too variable to reveal any pattern. The work was “highly contingent,” driven by an emergency list rather than a roster - not, as the decision described it, a “system, method or plan.”
The worker genuinely expected 2026 to look like 2025, and the Commission did not doubt her on that. But an expectation of more casual shifts is not the same as an expectation of regular and systematic work, and only the second kind counts toward the qualifying period.
Because she had not completed the minimum employment period, she was not protected from unfair dismissal. That meant no remedy was available to her, and the Commission never had to decide whether the dismissal itself was harsh or unfair. Her application was dismissed.
The practical signal for employers: a casual or on-call arrangement can run for a year and still sit outside unfair dismissal protection. What decides it is the shape of the work - how regular and systematic it is - not how long someone has been on the list.
