When 'regular and systematic' really matters for casual workforce planning
A long-serving casual horse-riding worker has lost her unfair dismissal case after the Fair Work Commission found her shifts in the lead-up to dismissal were too sporadic to qualify as "regular and systematic" engagement.
The decision in Sandra Hillyer v Chapman Valley Horse Riding [2026] FWC 1668, handed down by Commissioner Matheson on 8 May 2026, is a useful read for anyone managing a casual workforce, particularly in a small business.
Hillyer started with Chapman Valley Horse Riding in May 2023 and was employed on a casual basis from then on. She was dismissed on 7 January 2026, a tenure of around two years and eight months. On the face of it, that sounds like it should clear the minimum employment period with room to spare. It didn't.
Because Chapman Valley is a small business employer, the minimum employment period was one year. But for a casual, that time only counts if the worker was a "regular casual" with a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment on a regular and systematic basis. That's where Hillyer's case ran into trouble.
The employer put forward a shift history showing the engagement had thinned out considerably. Hillyer worked only three days in August 2025, no shifts in September 2025, four days in October 2025, no shifts in November 2025, one day in December 2025 and two days in January 2026. The employer argued there was no consistent pattern of days, hours or frequency by the time of the dismissal.
Hillyer told the determinative conference on 1 May 2026 that before August 2025 she had been asked to work two weekends a fortnight, but it may have been more depending on the requirements of the role. She said her shift count dropped because she had travelled abroad from September 2025. The employer pushed back, saying the work had fluctuated and lacked regularity even before that six-month stretch. Hillyer didn't file written submissions or evidence to counter the employer's position.
Commissioner Matheson noted that the Fair Work Act doesn't actually define "regular and systematic." Drawing on earlier authorities, including Ponce v DJT Staff Management Services Pty Ltd T/A Daly's Traffic and Yaraka Holdings Pty Ltd v Giljevic, the Commissioner observed that the term "regular" implies a repetitive pattern but does not mean uniform or constant, while "systematic" requires the engagement to be "something that could fairly be called a system, method or plan."
On the evidence, the Commissioner preferred the employer's account, finding Hillyer's engagement was "infrequent and so variable" that there was no discernible pattern at all. The result: her casual service didn't count toward the minimum employment period, and she wasn't protected from unfair dismissal.
There was a second hurdle too, considered by the Commissioner as an alternative basis in case her primary finding was wrong. Hillyer's application was filed on 7 March 2026, 38 days after the 21-day window closed on 28 January 2026. She said the dismissal had occurred unexpectedly and without warning, that it had caused her distress and depression such that she was not in a position to manage the administrative requirements of lodging an application, and that she had not been aware of the Fair Work process. The Commissioner accepted that the period after a dismissal can be a difficult time, but noted Hillyer had not produced any medical evidence in support of her assertions, and that being unaware of the process is "not unusual for a self-represented Applicant." No extension of time was granted.
The employer also told the Commission that Hillyer had been dismissed over concerns about her failure to follow workplace procedures, systems and requirements, including safety-critical processes, and said those concerns had been raised with her on multiple occasions, though not in writing. The employer said it had complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. The Commissioner found the merits turned on contested facts that could not be resolved without a full hearing of the evidence, and the application was dismissed.
For HR leaders, a few practical points worth filing away. Long tenure on a casual contract doesn't automatically translate into unfair dismissal protection; what matters is whether the engagement is regular and systematic, particularly in the period leading up to dismissal. Rostering records are powerful evidence, both ways. And for small business employers relying on the Code, documenting performance and conduct conversations in writing remains the safer course, even when verbal warnings have been given.
