Hotel operator's willingness to continue employment contradicts termination claims
A casual hotel housekeeper lost her general protections application after the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found she was not dismissed but rather failed to maintain proper communication about her ongoing availability for shifts.
The case arose when the worker claimed she was terminated because she exercised workplace rights, following a period where she received no roster assignments after taking several days of leave in June 2025.
The worker argued she was dismissed on 25 June 2025 when she stopped receiving shifts despite providing her manager with availability information via text message on 15 June.
The hotel operator contested the dismissal claim, maintaining that the worker simply stopped communicating her availability and was offered shifts after the application was lodged, which she declined.
Casual employment requires ongoing availability communication
The housekeeper worked on a casual basis at a hotel in Canberra, initially employed in April 2023 before resigning in September 2023, then recommencing employment in February 2025.
She claimed to work regular and consistent shifts that created a reasonable expectation of continuing employment, though evidence showed her availability changed regularly due to university studies and work with another employer.
Text message exchanges from May 2025 onward demonstrated that the worker maintained regular communication with her manager about her availability, with scheduling adjustments made for various personal and professional commitments.
This pattern established the expectation that ongoing availability communication was necessary for continued roster inclusion in the casual employment arrangement.
The worker took leave on 4 June, 7 June, and again from 9-15 June 2025, before sending a text message on Sunday 15 June stating she could work any day the following week except Friday and Sunday.
This message represented her final communication with the employer before lodging the Commission application on 12 July 2025.
Final availability message creates scheduling confusion
The worker's text message on 15 June 2025 specifically indicated availability "next week" only, without providing ongoing availability information beyond that single week period.
The Commission found this communication was limited in scope and did not establish continuing availability for future roster periods as had been the established practice throughout the employment relationship.
Evidence showed the roster for the week beginning 16 June had already been finalised when the worker sent her availability message on the preceding Sunday.
The worker acknowledged during the hearing that the earliest she could expect rostering would be the following week, but she failed to provide availability information for that period.
The worker stated during proceedings that she was unsure of her availability after the week commencing 16 June 2025, undermining her position that she remained ready and available for ongoing casual employment.
This uncertainty contradicted her claim that she maintained consistent availability and expectation of continuing work.
No employer initiative to terminate employment
The Commission applied established legal principles requiring that dismissal must result from employer action intended to bring employment to an end, either directly or as a probable consequence of employer conduct.
The analysis focused on whether the employer took steps that would reasonably result in termination or whether the employment relationship ended through other means.
Evidence demonstrated that the hotel operator did not take any action intended to terminate the worker's employment or communicate that no further shifts would be offered.
The absence of shifts following 15 June resulted from the worker's failure to provide ongoing availability information, rather than the employer's decision to exclude her from rostering.
The Commission noted that after the application was lodged, the hotel operator took steps to confirm the worker had not been dismissed and offered her additional shifts, which she declined.
This response contradicted the worker's claims of dismissal and demonstrated the employer's willingness to continue the employment relationship.
Communication patterns establish employment expectations
The evidence revealed that throughout the employment period, the worker regularly communicated with her manager about availability changes related to university commitments and other employment obligations.
This established pattern created mutual understanding that ongoing communication was necessary for casual roster inclusion and shift assignments.
The worker's regular communication pattern included providing specific availability information well in advance of roster periods, allowing management to plan staffing appropriately.
The breakdown in this communication pattern after 15 June represented a departure from established practice rather than employer-initiated termination.
The Commission found it reasonable and unremarkable that management would not roster the worker for shifts when she failed to provide availability information according to established patterns.
The employer's response reflected normal casual employment practices rather than dismissal conduct.
Application dismissed for lack of dismissal finding
The Commission concluded that no dismissal occurred within the meaning of employment law, as the worker's employment was not terminated at the employer's initiative but ended due to a communication breakdown and failure to maintain availability patterns.
This finding eliminated jurisdiction for general protections contraventions involving dismissal.
The decision emphasised that casual employment relationships require ongoing communication about availability, and failure to maintain such communication cannot be characterised as employer-initiated termination.
The worker's assumption that single-week availability notification was sufficient contradicted established workplace practices and reasonable employment expectations.
The dismissal of the application demonstrated how casual employment arrangements depend on mutual communication and availability coordination, with employment relationships naturally ending when these communications cease rather than requiring formal termination processes.
