Casual worker remains employed pending resolution of safety and well-being concerns
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) dismissed an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act after determining that a casual support worker was not dismissed despite having no shifts allocated since June 2025.
The Commission found the employer suspended work assignments pending a meeting to address safety concerns the worker had raised, rather than terminating employment.
The worker argued she was dismissed, citing loss of system access, cancellation of regular shifts, and no work hours since 3 June 2025.
The employer maintained that the worker remained employed and that shift suspensions were temporary pending a welfare meeting to address her stated concerns.
Commission examines worker's safety concerns message and employer response
The Commission found that the worker commenced casual employment as a support worker in November 2024 with the disability services organisation.
The Commission heard evidence that on 1 June 2025, the worker sent a group message to team engagement officers, detailing her personal circumstances and safety concerns related to her employment.
The Commission noted the message also referenced a period of eight weeks off to feel better and mentioned getting a doctor's certification, though it found it was unclear whether such a request was actually being made, and no medical certificate was provided.
The FWC found the team leader responded on 2 June 2025, offering support and indicating the concerns raised were being taken seriously and escalated to HR.
The Commission determined that it was reasonable for the employer to meet with the worker to clarify her comments about extended leave, as well as discuss her well-being and safety concerns, prior to her performing work, given the content of her message.
Commission finds shift suspension aimed at worker safety and welfare
The Commission heard evidence that when the worker's concerns were escalated to HR, management decided to ask the worker to meet to discuss her safety and wellbeing and made the decision to suspend her shifts in the meantime.
The Commission found the employer had other employees cover the worker's shifts until she was able to meet to discuss an appropriate way forward.
The Commission noted that while a more appropriate response might have been to pay the worker for regular shifts until the meeting occurred, this did not constitute dismissal when having regard to all the information before it. The Commission found the evidence showed the employer was concerned about placing the worker in an unsafe situation if she was already feeling unsafe.
The Commission determined that the regular Friday shift that was permanently allocated to the worker had not been given to another worker and was being distributed as cover shifts. This is because the employer hoped to meet with the worker and reach a resolution moving forward.
Commission evaluates system access and employment status evidence
The Commission heard conflicting evidence regarding the worker's access to the Brevity System, which is necessary for her to perform her role.
The Commission found the worker stated she had been removed from the system around 3 June 2025, while management witnesses confirmed she remained an active member with continued access to the system and Teams chat used to offer additional shifts.
The FWC accepted the worker had difficulties accessing the system on 3 June 2025, but found it could not be satisfied that the problems resulted from the employer removing or blocking her access.
The Commission noted management explained access could be impacted if the worker had forgotten her password or did not have access to the required authenticator application.
The Commission found uncontested evidence that the worker still had access to necessary internal systems to perform her role and receive shifts, remained on the employer's payroll, and her allocated client had not been permanently reallocated to another support worker.
FWC determines that no employment termination occurred
The Commission determined that the materials before it did not demonstrate that the employer brought the employment relationship to an end, but rather supported the finding that the employer was seeking to engage with the worker to facilitate ongoing employment.
The Commission found the evidence showed the employer made numerous attempts to contact the worker to arrange a meeting.
The FWC noted the worker indicated she did not want to meet with the employer and had not responded to meeting requests.
The Commission heard management provide a detailed description of the organisation's processes for terminating casual employees, including completion of exit forms, and confirmed this process had not occurred for the worker.
The FWC concluded that at the time of the decision, the worker remained a casual employee who had not been rostered since 3 June 2025.
The Commission observed that if the worker were seeking to continue her employment, meeting with the employer would be crucial to resolving the situation; therefore, the application was dismissed accordingly.
