Three countries, three contracts, and one week home that couldn’t keep his case in Australia
A manager who moved between his employer’s Australian, British and American arms couldn’t get his dismissal claim heard - because of who employed him.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the case on September 4, 2026, finding it had no power to hear it. The worker had applied under the Fair Work Act’s general protections - the part that lets people challenge a dismissal - but the Commission never examined the dismissal itself. One question had to be answered first: was he even an “Australian-based employee” when he lost his job? The Commission found he was not, which put him outside the Act.
His work history reads like a relocation diary. He joined an Australian engineering firm in 2018 as an IT manager and stayed on when it merged into Stantec Australia in 2020. In June 2021 he moved to the United Kingdom, and that August his employment shifted to the group’s UK company. His Australian annual leave was paid out, a final Australian payslip followed, and he emailed HR acknowledging he had been “terminated in Australia.” The company said it was “holding” his long service and personal leave balances in case he ever came back.
In December 2023 he signed a contract with the group’s US business - while he was physically in Australia. He worked one week at home under that contract in early 2024, managing Australian staff, then flew to Britain, then to the United States, where he stayed until his dismissal. His final paid day was May 1, 2025.
He argued his Australian job had never really ended, that the UK and US contracts were paperwork for tax and payroll, and that his role barely changed. The Commission was not persuaded. He had provided only the last page of his UK contract and no other evidence that these moves were temporary secondments, and the US contract stated plainly that it replaced any earlier arrangements. In practice, his pay, benefits and duties had all moved to the American company.
It came down to two points. The Commission accepted the US contract was signed in Australia. But it also found the job was meant to be done overseas. Set against 63 weeks working abroad, one week of work in Australia was not a substantial part of the role. That put him outside the definition of an Australian-based employee, and the application was dismissed. Stantec had also argued the claim was filed too late, but the Commission did not need to decide that.
For HR, the lesson is quieter than the travel. When a globally mobile employee’s employing entity changes, the documentation decides which country’s law applies - final payslips, leave payouts, contracts that expressly override earlier ones, and the employee’s own written words. This worker kept the same company email and much of the same job. None of it outweighed a clean record showing his Australian employment had closed. When a move is genuinely a temporary secondment, that needs to be documented at the time - the paperwork, not the job title, is what the Commission looked to.
