Why the worker's two months on agency books just unlocked his unfair dismissal claim
A casual electrical supervisor has cleared the first hurdle in his unfair dismissal case after the Fair Work Commission ruled his earlier labour-hire stint counted as service.
The decision, handed down by Commissioner Riordan on 15 May 2026 in Mr Trent Morgan v ADB Safegate Australia Pty Ltd, dismissed the employer's jurisdictional objection and is a useful read for HR teams managing casual and agency workforces.
Trent Morgan was placed at ADB Safegate Australia by labour-hire provider Celotti Workforce from 27 January to 30 March 2025. He then moved across to the company directly, starting as a casual Electrical Supervisor on 31 March 2025. His last paid shift was on 22 September 2025. ADB Safegate terminated his casual employment on 29 October 2025.
The employer argued Morgan had not completed the six-month minimum employment period required to bring an unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act. On the company's calculation, he had logged 175 days of direct employment - short of six months.
Morgan ran two arguments. First, that the period after his last shift should still count - the company had sent him a letter dated 24 September 2025 saying he was "not required to attend work" while it considered further complaints. Second, and more usefully for HR readers, that his two months at Celotti should be added in, because the move into direct employment was a transfer of business under section 311 of the Fair Work Act.
The Commissioner went with the second argument.
The key question was whether ADB Safegate had outsourced its electrical work to Celotti, or was just topping up its workforce with agency labour. Applying the test from Abbott v Acciona Infrastructure, Commissioner Riordan found this was outsourcing. A supplementary witness statement from General Manager Myles Youngs said the company "engaged Celotti Workforce to supply it with Electricians from time to time." Riordan noted ADB Safegate had outsourced all of its electrical work, except for the Electrical Supervisor role.
The employer also tried to argue the labour-hire work as an Electrician was different from the direct role as an Electrical Supervisor. The Commissioner rejected that too, finding the supervisor role required the same underlying electrical trade competencies. A supervisor without those qualifications, he reasoned, could not answer trade questions on phase rotation, voltage drop or how to wire a two-way light switch.
On the stand-down period, the Commissioner sided with the employer. Casual employees do not accrue service when they are not at work, and the casual loading compensates for service entitlements. That period was excluded.
But with the Celotti time counted, Morgan cleared the six-month threshold. The jurisdictional objection was dismissed, and a Directions Conference will be convened to schedule the substantive unfair dismissal hearing.
For HR teams, the takeaway is simple. When a worker moves from a labour-hire placement into a direct role doing similar work, prior service may count toward the minimum employment period - and toward unfair dismissal eligibility. The risk is sharpest where the labour-hire arrangement looks more like an outsourced function than a temporary top-up. Reviewing how labour-hire is being used across the business, and documenting the basis of each arrangement, is a sensible next step.
