Casual pool attendant lost his job after a storm - then tried to pull the site manager in too
A storm shut a pool. A worker lost his job. His attempt to drag the site manager into court has now failed.
In a decision handed down on May 20, 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia drew a firm line around one of the trickiest questions in labour hire: when a worker is supplied to one company but takes orders from another, who can actually be sued for a dismissal?
The worker was Shane David Averill, a casual pool attendant at the Woomera RAAF Base. His employer was OSOS Alliance Pty Ltd, a labour hire firm. The base was managed by Ventia Services Group Limited, described in the judgment as a publicly listed company that maintains and manages infrastructure across Australia and New Zealand, under a contract with the Department of Defence.
In October 2024, a severe storm cut power to the base and the pool closed. Averill says he was reassigned to the refrigeration stores, where he fell and injured his left leg. Within days, OSOS ended his casual contract, pointing to the storm, the outages and a looming Christmas closure.
Averill sued OSOS under the general protections part of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which shields workers from "adverse action" - things like dismissal - taken for a banned reason. He argued he was let go because of his injury, triggering protections against disability discrimination and against sacking someone for a temporary absence caused by injury.
OSOS disagreed. In its court response, it said Averill was dismissed for "legitimate operational requirements primarily due to the severe storm event, power outages, the host employer Ventia's requirement to prioritize essential services, its direction to the Respondent to demobilise non-essential casual workers, and indications that these roles were not likely to be re-engaged on site for a month or longer."
Then came the move that makes this one worth reading. More than a year in, Averill tried to add Ventia as a second respondent, arguing it really ran the site and effectively made the decision to terminate him - so it was liable as an accessory under section 550 of the Act. He noted he wore a Ventia uniform, used Ventia's rostering and timesheet apps, and took his daily direction from Ventia staff, describing OSOS as effectively a "pay master."
Ventia resisted, and its winning argument was procedural. Before a general protections claim over a dismissal can reach court, the Fair Work Commission must run a conciliation and issue a certificate identifying the dispute. Averill's certificate, dated December 10, 2024, named only his dispute with OSOS. Ventia was never in that process.
Judge Brown refused the joinder. Relying on recent rulings, including McGrory v Horizon One Recruitment Pty Ltd and Andrade v Goodyear and Dunlop Tyres (Aust) Pty Ltd, the judge held the certificate is a strict gateway that can't be dodged by chasing an accessory who was never named before the Commission.
The judge also found the case against Ventia thin. Averill had no medical certificate for the injury claim, and the judge found his assertion that Ventia directed OSOS to terminate him because he had injured his calf rested on "conjecture." There had been a real storm and a real closure, and the operative reason for ending a casual role in that situation was not, the judge found, "objectively fanciful or obviously manufactured."
On costs, Ventia had warned Averill in correspondence dated July 7, 2025 that it would chase him if he persisted. The judge said no. Section 570 of the Act only allows costs in narrow cases, and the judge found Averill's error was an understandable one for a self-represented worker caught in a labour hire tangle. There was no suggestion he acted vexatiously.
The joinder was dismissed, no costs were ordered, and the claim against OSOS now heads to mediation.
The takeaways for HR are concrete. In labour hire and host employer arrangements, the question of who made the decision is often murky - OSOS, not Ventia, was the named employer on the paperwork, even though Averill took his direction from Ventia staff. The reverse onus only helps a worker who first proves the basic facts linking the dismissal to a protected right - and the judge found Averill never did. The Commission certificate is a hard gate too: anyone not named in conciliation is very hard to bring into court later, so both labour hire firms and host employers should work out early who is really in the frame. And the temporary-absence protection only bites if the worker produces proper medical certification - a reminder that documentation discipline matters on both sides of the desk.
