When a client ends the assignment, HR still needs the paper trail behind it
Labour hire employers still face HR risk when client site removals follow workplace complaints.
The Fair Work Commission’s decision in Kevin Austin v HSS Resources Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2132, delivered on June 10, 2026, is a practical reminder for HR teams managing labour hire arrangements: a client may control access to its site, but the employer still needs a clear record of what happens next.
Kevin Austin started with HSS Resources Pty Ltd on October 28, 2025, as a casual dump truck operator. HSS assigned him to work at the MMS Tennant Creek Nobles Project, a fly-in, fly-out site operated by Mineral Mining Services Pty Ltd. On November 30, 2025, MMS told Austin he would be demobilised from the site. Austin then messaged HSS, saying he was shocked because he had just been told his employment had ended and that he would be flown back to Darwin.
The complaint that followed was not simply about losing a placement. Austin said that while he was on site, he had raised concerns with MMS about site safety, bullying and discrimination. His central claim was that his demobilisation was connected to those concerns. He alleged HSS was complicit in MMS’s decision to “terminate” him unlawfully, or alternatively, that HSS failed to investigate his concerns or challenge MMS after learning about them.
Austin filed his Fair Work application on December 22, 2025. The application named HSS and MMS as respondents, but Austin and MMS resolved their differences privately. The matter then proceeded only against HSS.
For HR professionals, the case sits in a familiar grey zone. When a host client removes a labour hire worker, does that simply end the assignment, or does it also end the employment relationship?
HSS argued that MMS alone made the decision to remove Austin from site, that HSS was not involved in that decision, and that his employment with HSS continued after the assignment ended. Commissioner Sloan accepted there was no evidence HSS was involved in the demobilisation decision, or that it knew about the decision before MMS communicated it to Austin. The Commission also noted that Austin had not told HSS about his bullying, discrimination and safety concerns until December 1, 2025, after MMS had already decided to remove him.
That timing mattered. The Commission said HSS had only a matter of hours between Austin’s phone call with its senior recruitment adviser on the morning of December 1, 2025, and his departure from site around midday. In those circumstances, it was unrealistic to expect HSS to investigate the concerns or persuade MMS to reverse a decision it had already made.
The Commission also rejected Austin’s argument that the end of the MMS assignment automatically ended his employment with HSS. His contract said he was employed on a casual basis and that HSS could offer work when business needs required it. On that basis, the Commission found the employment relationship was not necessarily tied to that single assignment.
Still, the decision carries a useful warning for labour hire employers. Commissioner Sloan observed there may have been room to question how long Austin’s employment relationship continued after December 1, 2025, because HSS had not offered him work after that date. Austin produced documents showing HSS was recruiting dump truck operators in January 2026, while HSS did not lead evidence proving there were no opportunities for him.
The application was dismissed because Austin’s case was framed around the argument that HSS dismissed him through the demobilisation itself, and the Commission was not persuaded that happened.
The HR takeaway is straightforward. When a labour hire worker is removed from a client site, especially after complaints about bullying, discrimination or safety, employers should document what they knew, when they knew it, what steps they took, and whether other work was genuinely considered. The client may make the site call. But HR still owns the employment trail.
