Commissioner rules nearly three years of weekly work created legitimate expectations despite contract
A casual journalist at The Guardian worked nearly three years of regular weekly shifts but had no job security on paper. That contradiction just came back to haunt the publisher.
Richard McLeish worked as a casual news producer for GNM Australia from 5 July 2022 until 29 February 2025, when the company told him his employment was ending because it had lost faith in his ability to work autonomously following an incident where a story was published early.
When McLeish filed an unfair dismissal claim on 19 March 2025, GNM raised a jurisdictional objection. The company argued he was just a casual with no real expectation of ongoing work, and therefore not eligible for unfair dismissal protections under the Fair Work Act.
On the surface, GNM had a strong case. McLeish's contract explicitly told him to expect nothing. It stated he would be engaged as and when required, that each shift was a separate contract ending automatically when it finished, and that the company made no firm commitment to continuing work. The contract even included the line: "You should have no expectation of continuing employment with the Company."
GNM also pointed out that McLeish had declined shifts that were offered to him. Between July 2023 and July 2024, there were more than 50 days of unavailability, and in his last six months there were 26 days. The shifts were offered to cover permanent staff absences for sick leave, annual leave, rostered days off and secondments.
But Commissioner Perica saw through the paperwork to the reality underneath. In a decision handed down on 12 November 2025, he found that McLeish had worked an average of 2.5 shifts every single week across his employment. From July 2022 to August 2024, that meant 11 shifts a month. Even when work dropped off in his final months, he still averaged 9 shifts monthly.
More importantly, most of those shifts were not ad hoc at all. GNM contacted McLeish two weeks in advance for his availability for the monthly roster. McLeish said in his witness statement that the majority of shifts he performed were planned in advance, not last-minute phone calls or text messages.
The commissioner noted that GNM had created a system for allocating work to its casual pool, and that system delivered a pattern of weekly shifts to McLeish over the course of years. That pattern, he ruled, made the engagement both regular and systematic.
The decision applied case law from Angele Chander and Bed Bath N Table Pty Ltd, which says the term regular should be read liberally and can include frequent though unpredictable work. Something is systematic when it follows a method or plan, even without guaranteed hours or predictable engagements.
As for reasonable expectation, Commissioner Perica found that two years and seven months of consistent weekly work created a legitimate belief the arrangement would continue. When GNM ended his employment, McLeish had already agreed to work further rostered shifts.
The ruling dismissed the jurisdictional objection, clearing the way for McLeish to pursue his unfair dismissal claim. The case will now proceed to a full hearing, with directions to be issued in due course.
For HR teams managing casual workforces, the message is uncomfortable but clear. Contract language disclaiming ongoing employment means little when rostering practices tell employees something different. The commissioner noted that contract terms are just one factor in assessing casual employment, not the deciding factor. If your casuals work regular weekly shifts planned weeks in advance, they may have more protection than you think.
