Her claim failed on a finding that has major implications for casual employment
A casual mining operator rejected a job offer and flew home. Her unfair dismissal claim failed because the commission found she was never dismissed at all.
The February 3, 2026 decision has clarified a question that keeps labour hire employers up at night: when does a casual employment relationship actually end?
Kate Sainty worked as a casual plant operator for Karlayura Personnel, a small labour hire company servicing mining sites. In April 2024, she started at FMG's Solomon Hub. In January 2025, her employment transferred to Karlayura under a new contract that explicitly stated the employer "makes no commitment that you will continue to be engaged on a Longterm basis, or that you will be provided with ongoing employment."
In March 2025, FMG's senior supervisor raised issues about Sainty and requested Karlayura provide a replacement. On March 26, 2025, Karlayura's then-general manager Aidan Foster told Sainty she was no longer required at Solomon Hub but that he was arranging a new placement at FMG's Cloudbreak mine site.
Over the next two weeks, Foster and Sainty exchanged numerous messages about the Cloudbreak mobilization. She arrived on April 10, 2025, only to discover the role was for a dump truck operator, not the loader operator position she expected. Sainty told site management she couldn't perform dump truck work and contacted Foster.
Foster's position was straightforward: she could either do the job offered or fly home. According to the decision, "Mr Foster's evidence is that he told Ms Sainty that she could either do the job offered, or arrangements would be made to fly her off site." Later that day, he texted her flight details.
Sainty argued she had been misled about the role. In a lengthy text message on April 23, 2025, she wrote: "if you told me that you were transferring me up there as a truck operator, not a loader operator like I was originally employed for none of this would've even happened."
During the dispute, Sainty even sent Foster a screenshot from an AI search about dismissal rights. Foster replied: "You weren't terminated you were offered another job and refused to do it."
The evidence showed Sainty had previously worked as a dump truck operator at Solomon Hub in 2021 and held current qualifications for the role. While she hadn't operated that particular truck model, she could have completed the required verification of competency process.
On May 21, 2025, Sainty requested a separation certificate. An accounts employee in her second day at Karlayura processed it, marking "end of season or contract" as the reason without knowing the circumstances.
Commissioner Lim found that Karlayura's view that the dump truck role was suitable for Sainty was reasonable. More significantly, the Commissioner determined that offering the role wasn't proof Karlayura wanted to end the employment relationship. The decision noted that "from the evidence Karlayura was trying to find a new assignment within Ms Sainty's skillset and experience as soon as possible."
The Commissioner found the employment relationship ended on April 23, 2025, and that this was not on Karlayura's initiative. The application was dismissed.
The implications for employers managing casual or labour hire workforces are significant. Periods between assignments don't constitute dismissal, even when extended. The employment relationship can continue while employers search for suitable placements, provided they're genuinely attempting to find new work within the employee's capabilities. The case also underscores the importance of clear communication about role details during reassignments to avoid disputes that could have been prevented with a simple conversation.
