The Full Bench has drawn a clear line on when zero shifts means dismissal
No shifts for over a year is not dismissal, the Fair Work Commission Full Bench ruled on 16 March 2026.
The case involved Mary Ann Watson, a long-term casual employee of aged care provider Feros Care Limited, who argued she had been effectively dismissed after the company told her in writing on 14 May 2025 that it had no casual shifts available.
Watson had worked casually for Feros Care for a number of years. In 2023, she raised allegations of adverse action against the company. That same year, Feros Care offered its casual workforce the chance to convert to permanent part-time roles. Most accepted. Watson declined.
The ripple effect of that conversion programme was significant. With the majority of casuals now on permanent contracts, the remaining casual employees, including Watson, were left primarily to fill roster gaps, cover personal leave, or respond to last-minute client requests. Watson had not worked a shift since around February 2024, partly due to an injury.
The situation grew more complicated through late 2024. In November 2024, Feros Care wrote to Watson advising that it no longer required casual employees in the Byron Bay area to fill roster gaps, and it requested a meeting to discuss the matter. That meeting never took place. Watson also raised a safety issue in late 2024 and alleged she was excluded from a meeting in December 2024. Her portal access was also suspended at some point. On appeal, the Full Bench found that none of these matters were significant to the central question of whether Watson had been dismissed on 14 May 2025.
From late 2024 through to April 2025, Watson was involved in a separate dispute before the Commission and, during that time, did not make herself available for casual shifts.
In May 2025, Watson asked Feros Care for a commitment to permanent part-time employment. The response, dated 14 May 2025, was direct: there were no part-time vacancies, the company did not have "any available casual shifts at present," and it was unable to "re-engage scheduling of casual shifts at this time."
Watson took this as confirmation her employment was over. On 27 May 2025, Feros Care sent a further written communication to Watson expressly stating that her employment had not been terminated.
Deputy President Saunders, sitting at first instance, found in favour of Feros Care. He concluded that while no work was being offered at the time, the door had not been permanently closed. The correspondence itself made clear that future availability remained a possibility, and that the reference to no available shifts related to Watson's designated areas and her stated availability. The Deputy President found there was no action by Feros Care that was the principal contributing factor in any termination of employment, and that Watson had not been dismissed.
Watson appealed, raising 15 grounds. The Full Bench, comprising Deputy President Roberts, Commissioner Matheson and Commissioner Crawford, refused permission to appeal on 16 March 2026. The bench found the Deputy President's approach was "an entirely orthodox one based on well-established principles," and that none of the 15 grounds disclosed an arguable case of appealable error.
The case is a practical reference point for HR teams managing casual workforces. Casual employment is by its nature changeable, and a prolonged reduction in shifts does not automatically signal the end of an employment relationship. What carries real legal weight, as the 14 May 2025 letter demonstrated, is the precise language used when communicating changes in shift availability. How that correspondence is worded, and what it leaves open, is what courts and tribunals will ultimately scrutinise.
