FWC finds labour hire firm’s silence and cancelled shifts added up to dismissal
A diabetic casual worker removed from shifts by a labour hire firm has won the right to press a dismissal claim, the Fair Work Commission has ruled.
In a decision handed down on 12 December 2025, the Commission found that Dean Ciantar, a casual employee engaged through Action Workforce Pty Limited, had in fact been dismissed and could proceed with a general protections application involving dismissal, despite filing it four days late.
Ciantar, who is diabetic and requires insulin injections, started casual work with Action Workforce on 17 March 2025. He said he applied for a forklift role, but was placed instead at a client’s warehouse doing dispatch and receiving work. He told the Commission that the manual work in dispatch caused his blood glucose levels to fall to “a critical low.”
According to his evidence, Ciantar disclosed his condition to managers at the client site and reached an understanding that he could check his phone to monitor his blood glucose and take breaks when necessary. He said he experienced several low glucose events in June and early July 2025, which he managed by taking breaks and adjusting his insulin dose.
Roster records before the Commission showed that Ciantar worked his last shift on 7 July 2025 and had rostered shifts between 8 and 11 July 2025 cancelled. He said he was then told to obtain medical clearance.
On 8 July 2025, a medical certificate stated he was fit to drive a forklift, had no medical conditions preventing this, and could undertake manual handling, but only for short periods. Ciantar said he provided this certificate to Action Workforce but received no further shifts.
Action Workforce argued that he had not been dismissed, but remained a casual employee on the roster whose last assignment ended because the medical restriction on manual handling meant he could not perform the client’s role. It said health‑related work restrictions posed a significant obstacle to finding other casual placements.
Ciantar gave evidence that on 14 July 2025 he phoned Josh, the company’s representative at the client site, after hearing nothing about his future shifts. During that call, he said, Josh told him his employment with the client had been terminated and that someone from Action Workforce would contact him in the next couple of days. Ciantar told the Commission that no one from Action Workforce contacted him after that conversation, and that text messages he sent on 29 July and 5 August 2025 went unanswered.
Commissioner Matheson preferred Ciantar’s account, noting that he had not received any shifts since 7 July 2025 and that there was no evidence of the company reaching out after 14 July 2025. In those circumstances, the Commission found that his employment was terminated at the initiative of the employer, and that he had been dismissed.
The Commission determined that the effective date of dismissal was 14 July 2025. Because Ciantar’s general protections application was lodged on 8 August 2025, it fell outside the 21‑day statutory timeframe and required an extension.
Here, the Commission found “exceptional circumstances.” It accepted there was ambiguity and confusion about the dismissal date, particularly given the indication that someone from Action Workforce would be in touch and the subsequent silence. It also took into account that Ciantar contacted the Commission on 14 July 2025 seeking advice, later filed an unfair dismissal application, and then filed the correct general protections form.
On that basis, the Commission extended time to 8 August 2025. The matter will now proceed to a conference, where the Commission will assist the parties in an attempt to resolve the general protections dispute.
For HR, the clear takeaway is that silence and roster “drift” after medical restrictions are raised can still amount to dismissal, so employers need to communicate clearly, document decisions and actively explore suitable duties.
