A three-year regular casual lost her shifts after asking to be paid properly
A casual worker asked to be paid for setup time, then her employer removed her from the roster. Fair Work called it a dismissal.
Jessie Perrin worked as a casual group fitness instructor for Yarra City Council from 19 April 2021. From around March 2022, she taught two aqua classes every Friday morning at the Collingwood Leisure Centre on a regular two-hour shift from 8.15am to 10.15am.
The council required Perrin to be on the pool deck at 8.15am, ready to start her first class, and accepted this meant she needed to arrive early to set up. Under the Yarra City Council Enterprise Agreement 2021-2025, instructors on shifts of two hours or more were entitled to 15 minutes of paid setup and pack-up time. The rostering system, however, could not accommodate a start time before 8.15am. Perrin accepted in evidence that she understood these arrangements.
On 5 September 2025, she emailed her manager, Adam Horton, making clear she would arrive for her scheduled 8.15am start, and that if the council wanted her on site before 8.15am for setup, it would need to adjust her timesheet to accurately reflect the time she was expected to be on site and working.
That same day, between classes at 9.05am, she sent a further email to Horton reiterating the same point.
The email to Horton included the following: "If you'd like me to start work before 8.15am could you please make the adjustments on my timesheet to accurately reflect the time I am expected to be on-site and working."
On 9 September 2025, she separately emailed the council's payroll department seeking backpay for approximately 3,075 minutes of unpaid work.
Horton replied on 10 September 2025. After consulting colleagues, he interpreted Perrin's emails as an indication she could not meet shift requirements. His response: "Dear Jessie, Thank you for your email and confirming you are unable to meet the requirements of the shifts. I have removed you from the future roster. As always, you are welcome to request available shifts you are available for, for consideration."
Perrin replied, clarifying she could work the 8.15am to 10.15am shift and asking to be put back on the roster. A few hours later, she sent a further email stating she did not know why she had been removed, again affirming she was able to work the 8.15am to 10.15am shift, and reiterating that Fair Work had advised it was illegal to expect her to perform unpaid setup duties. Horton did not reply to either email. Her shift was assigned to another staff member.
The council maintained Perrin was never dismissed. She remained on the payroll, retained access to her email and rostering system, and could request available shifts. The council also noted that after 20 November 2025, she was no longer eligible for shifts until she updated her CPR certificate.
In a decision on 1 April 2026, Commissioner Connolly rejected the council's jurisdictional objection and found Perrin had been dismissed on 10 September 2025 within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Commissioner found Perrin never expressed any intention to resign. Her emails were seeking payment for time worked, not an indication she was unwilling to work. Horton's decision to remove her from the roster, replace her with another staff member, and ignore her requests to be reinstated amounted to a termination at the employer's initiative. The fact she remained on the council's systems was not determinative when no work was being offered.
The Commissioner also noted Horton made the decision without any discussion with Perrin and without explaining the rostering system's limitations.
This decision resolves only the jurisdictional question, that a dismissal occurred, clearing the way for the substantive claim to be heard. Perrin's broader allegation, that she was dismissed for exercising her workplace rights by seeking proper payment, will now proceed to a conciliation conference under the general protections provisions of the Act. Whether that contravention is made out remains to be determined.
A few points from this decision stand out for HR leaders. Removing a regular casual from their established shift pattern without a conversation can amount to a dismissal. A pay query is a workplace right under the Act, and what follows it will be scrutinised. And keeping someone on the payroll does not, on its own, mean the employment relationship is still intact.
