His visa lapsed in April - but the company didn't say he was sacked until July
The Fair Work Commission has given a gold mine worker more time to challenge his sacking, finding he wasn't told of it until months later.
The worker was a process technician at Barto Gold Mining, employed on a subclass 482 visa that allowed him to work in Australia. When that visa expired on April 15, 2026, he lost the legal right to work in the country. He flew back to Ghana later that month.
Rather than end his job on the spot, the company spent weeks looking into whether it could back him for a new visa. It let him draw on his accrued leave while he waited overseas, and by May 21, 2026 had told him the process was moving - it would advertise his role for 28 days, then lodge documents with the Department of Home Affairs.
Then the company changed course. In a letter on July 10, 2026, it said it would not renew the visa, pointing to the “softening gold price, strategy changes, cost margins and long-term viability”. It treated his employment as having ended back on April 15 - the day the visa lapsed - and paid him four weeks in lieu of notice plus unused leave.
That timing is what brought the case to the Commission. The worker filed his unfair dismissal claim on July 18, 2026 - just eight days after the company finally told him he was out. But these claims have to be lodged within 21 days of a dismissal taking effect, and his job had officially ended back on April 15. That made the claim 73 days late.
In a decision dated September 8, 2026, the Commission gave him the extra time anyway, ruling the delay was backed by exceptional circumstances. The reasoning was simple: because he wasn't told of the dismissal until July 10, the 21-day filing window had effectively run out before he knew it was ticking. The Commission called the margin for allowing the extension “somewhat slim”.
For HR, that's the practical signal. Dating a termination to a visa-expiry date, then telling the worker weeks or months later, can hand them a live path back to the Commission - the delay itself can become the exceptional circumstance that reopens the door.
None of this decides whether the sacking was fair. That question is still open. The Commission did give an early read on one part of it: under his contract, keeping a valid visa was the worker's own responsibility, and failing to do so could amount to a valid reason for dismissal. But it went no further. A valid reason isn't the whole test of fairness, and without more evidence the Commission rated the strength of his underlying case as neutral - neither strong nor weak.
The two sides also disagree on who had to keep his right to work current. The company relied on his contract, which required him to hold a valid visa and to flag any change in his status straight away. The worker's account points the other way: he says he raised his expiring visa, that an HR adviser promised to work on the renewal, and that he was advised to return to Ghana as the best way to get it processed. He asked for that promise in writing before he left. It never came. Those accounts will be tested later.
For now, the outcome is narrow. A late claim gets heard. The matter moves to conciliation and, if that fails, to a full hearing on whether the dismissal was unfair. The Commission has made no finding on the merits.
