The difference between end of assignment and dismissal just got clearer
Does pulling a casual worker off a client's site amount to dismissal? A 1 April 2026 Fair Work ruling says no.
Ms Duyen Ho, a casual chemist, was placed by labour hire agency Persol Staffing Australia Pty Ltd at the Clayton plant of PPG Industries Australia Pty Ltd through an on-hire arrangement that commenced on 2 December 2024. Her employment contract with Persol was clear from the outset: there was no guarantee of work, and the terms carried no entitlement to continuing and indefinite work.
On 19 November 2025, Ho was observed using her mobile phone inside the laboratory, a designated prohibited area under PPG's Life Critical Rules. Ho admitted the breach and apologised. Two days later, on 21 November 2025, Persol's Senior Recruitment Consultant George Koshy emailed her with PPG's decision: she would not be re-engaged at the Clayton site. The email went further. Koshy wrote: "I will reach out to you directly if a suitable role becomes available in the future, and I'm happy to support you in exploring other opportunities."
Ho replied on 8 December 2025. She acknowledged the situation, agreed that leaving PPG was the right call, and said she would be in touch after returning in February 2026, expressing a preference for part-time or flexible work. Koshy responded the same day, confirming the agency's readiness to assist with future opportunities.
Ho said she made further contact with Koshy in January 2026, seeking the chance to explain the phone incident to PPG directly. Persol's representative at the hearing, Ms D Goodman, maintained that the agency had no contact from Ho after 8 December 2025, and that the next communication it received was her unfair dismissal application, filed on 27 January 2026. Persol disputed that any dismissal had taken place.
The hearing also carried a notable procedural element: Ho had requested a Vietnamese interpreter but, after Deputy President Clancy engaged with her on the question at the outset, she confirmed she was comfortable to proceed without one.
What followed at the hearing carried a further notable element. At no stage did Ho argue that Persol had dismissed her. Her core grievance was that she believed she had been misled into thinking she would be given the opportunity to explain the phone incident to PPG before a final decision was made. She said her mental health had been significantly affected after having been bullied at work at PPG, to the point that a month passed before she realised something was not right. She was also concerned she would not have a favourable reference from PPG to take to the employment market in pursuit of new employment.
Deputy President Clancy found no dismissal had occurred. The Commission found that neither of Koshy's emails had told Ho her employment with Persol was over. As the Commission noted: "They advised that the Respondent would contact the Applicant if another suitable role became available and further, that the Respondent would support the Applicant in exploring other opportunities, including suitable part-time or flexible opportunities."
The Commission also considered whether Persol's conduct had effectively left Ho with no real choice but to resign, finding it had not. Ho had not resigned from Persol. She had been removed from a client site. Her employment with the agency remained intact. The application was dismissed.
The case is a sharp reminder of how much weight the language of an end-of-assignment communication can carry. The difference between removing a worker from a site and dismissing them is not always intuitive, particularly for the worker. It is also a reminder of what a well-drafted casual employment contract can do: Persol's contract, which explicitly set out that no work was guaranteed and that no entitlement to continuing and indefinite work existed, formed part of the backdrop against which the Commission assessed the relationship — a backdrop that made clear there was no promise of ongoing placement to be broken in the first place.
