Your automated offboarding may not be ending employment, FWC warns
An employer stopped rostering a casual worker, said nothing for 11 months, then confirmed his termination in an email about a locker.
That is the central fact of a Fair Work Commission decision handed down on February 23, 2026, and it asks a question worth sitting with: do the people you stop rostering actually know their employment has ended?
Alexander Burton started as a casual Customer Service Officer and Range Officer with SSAA Pty Ltd, trading as St Marys Indoor Shooting Centre, on April 13, 2022. He worked five to six days a week, often in shifts of more than 10 hours. After requesting a conversion from casual to full-time employment - a request that was refused - he was moved through different roles before working his final shift on November 27, 2024.
The next day, Burton arrived for work and found he was off the roster. His manager told him there was "other stuff" coming. He waited. Months passed. SSAA kept sending him general staff communications. He retained access to his staff lockers and continued living in a rental property connected to the company at a rifle range in Silverdale, NSW.
Internally, SSAA had already decided not to offer him any more shifts. It just never said so.
In July 2025, Burton's access to the Employment Hero rostering platform was quietly removed and an automated offboarding notice sent. Still, no one spoke to him directly.
The clearest communication came on October 21, 2025, which was nearly 11 months after his last shift, in an email about emptying his staff lockers. It read: "You are advised you have seven 7 days to vacate these lockers as your employment with SSAA PTY LTD has ceased and you are not eligible for employee benefits."
Burton did not see the email until October 27, 2025. Commissioner McKinnon found it was "the first and only clear communication to Mr Burton that his employment with SSAA had ceased", and that October 21, 2025 was, legally, the date of his dismissal.
The ruling confirms something HR teams cannot afford to overlook: a decision to stop rostering a casual worker does not, on its own, end the employment relationship. Termination only takes legal effect when it is communicated clearly and directly to the employee. An automated platform notification does not meet that bar.
The case also flags a separate concern. Burton alleged that changes to his working arrangements were connected to his earlier request for casual conversion, and Commissioner McKinnon described his overall claim as "arguably a strong one." That issue is yet to be fully determined, but it adds another layer of risk to casual exits handled without proper documentation or process.
An extension of time to file the unfair dismissal application was granted, meaning the case will now proceed.
People and culture professionals managing casual workforces would do well to treat this case as a prompt. Clear, direct communication at the point of termination is not a courtesy; it is a legal requirement. Automated offboarding tools do not replace it. And where a casual conversion request sits in the background, documentation of every subsequent decision becomes essential.
A ghost employee is not just an administrative inconvenience. As this case makes plain, it can become a significant legal liability.
