His assignment ended - but did that end his job? The Commission drew a sharp line
When a casual worker's assignment ends, has the worker been fired? Not automatically. And a Fair Work Commission decision handed down on May 21, 2026, spells out why that distinction matters for any employer using labour hire.
Nikita Ulyanin was a casual employee of Hays, a recruitment and labour-supply firm. On October 27, 2025, he started an assignment at one of Hays' clients. On his third working day, two things happened: he raised a workplace health and safety complaint with his manager, and - according to the decision - he "allegedly abused a co-worker." The client told Hays he was not to return to its site.
Ulyanin treated that as a dismissal. He filed a general protections claim under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, arguing the sacking breached the Act. He even joined the client to the claim as an alleged accessory.
Here is the catch that decided it. A general protections dismissal claim only works if the person was actually dismissed - and Hays argued he wasn't. His assignment had ended, but his casual employment with Hays was still on foot, and Hays kept trying to place him.
The Commission sided with Hays.
Deputy President Easton set out what makes casual labour hire different. A casual worker, the decision notes, has "no firm advance commitment from the employer to continuing and indefinite work." Assignments start and stop. The end of one does not, by itself, end the employment relationship with the labour supplier. Whether a casual was truly dismissed, the decision says, "will invariably involve a close examination of the employer's conduct and communications."
So the Commission looked at what Hays did next. The evidence did not help Ulyanin. Hays arranged an interview for a permanent role within two weeks. It sent him text messages about casual warehouse work paying $35 an hour - the rate he said he wanted. Two of those texts appear in the decision, both headed "HAYS."
Ulyanin said he either did not receive the messages or did not notice them. The decision found his evidence on the point "evasive and unsatisfactory." Hays' business manager, Nabil Huq, gave evidence that plenty of work was available "at the $33.50 mark" but went unoffered because Ulyanin held out for more.
Ulyanin called the permanent-job offers a "fiction" - a way to push him out by placing him elsewhere. The Commission found no sign he ever raised that with Hays, and noted he attended at least one interview anyway.
The finding: Hays' conduct was "entirely consistent" with Ulyanin staying a casual employee after the client assignment ended. No dismissal, no claim. The application was dismissed.
For HR teams and anyone running labour hire, the lesson is practical. Losing a placement at a client site is not the same legal event as ending someone's employment. What shields the employer is the record of what happens after - genuine, documented, ongoing offers of suitable work. Hays' SMS trail and interview arrangements made the difference. The Commission even credited Hays for continuing to offer work after it learned Ulyanin had filed.
The flip side is a caution. A casual who turns down available work, or sets terms that rule most of it out, may find it hard to argue they were cut loose.
