Worker argues that the withdrawal of platform access constitutes dismissal
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case where a psychic reader brought an unfair dismissal application against his alleged employer.
The case arose when the worker found that his platform access was withdrawn in April 2025, following approximately three and a half years of providing telephone psychic readings through the company's website.
The worker argued he was an employee entitled to unfair dismissal protection, maintaining that his engagement with the psychic services platform created an employment relationship subject to Fair Work Act protections.
The company contested the application on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the worker operated as an independent contractor using their platform to provide services directly to customers rather than working under employment arrangements.
Online platform connects psychic readers with paying customers
The psychic services company operated an online platform where members of the public could select and pay for telephone consultations with various psychic readers advertised on the website.
Customers would choose their preferred reader and be charged on a timed basis for calls, with conversations lasting a maximum of 30 minutes before requiring reconnection through the same payment process.
The worker was introduced to the platform in 2021 through another psychic reader and was already familiar with the website as a viewer before becoming a service provider.
No written contract existed between the parties, with engagement terms established through verbal arrangements and practical operation of the platform access system.
The company provided the worker with website access codes and a silent telephone number that allowed him to identify calls from platform customers.
The only formal requirement imposed was a minimum of three hours logged-in time per week, though this could occur at any time of the worker's choosing, and his actual availability varied considerably, with extended periods of complete absence.
Payment structure reflects task-based rather than time-based remuneration
The worker received a proportion of customer payments for actual call time only, not for periods spent logged into the system waiting for calls.
Platform monitoring automatically tracked call duration, with payment rates increasing slightly if the worker maintained eight consecutive hours of availability.
However, this premium structure had minimal practical impact due to irregular usage patterns.
No employment benefits accompanied the payment arrangement; the worker received no annual leave, public holiday pay, or superannuation contributions.
Payments were not subject to taxation withholding, reflecting the platform's treatment of workers as independent service providers rather than employees subject to standard payroll obligations.
The worker's earnings fluctuated dramatically, earning only $25 in the twelve months preceding April 2025 and approximately $1,000 over the entire relationship period.
Payments were made fortnightly when amounts were due, though extended periods without any calls or earnings were common throughout the engagement.
Minimal supervision and control characterise working relationship
Evidence revealed extremely limited contact between the worker and platform management throughout the three-and-a-half-year relationship, with the company representative describing the arrangement as providing access codes and test calls before leaving workers "on their own."
No personal instructions were given regarding how to conduct readings, with the worker exercising complete discretion over advice provided to customers.
The worker generally told clients he was not providing qualified expert advice, though whether this represented company instruction or personal choice remained unclear from available evidence.
Apart from occasional group emails containing general platform information, direct communication between the worker and management was virtually non-existent.
The worker operated from home or any location of his choosing, using his own telephone equipment to receive calls routed through the platform's numbering system.
The company provided only login credentials and call identification numbers, with all other equipment and workspace supplied by the worker independently.
Legislative changes emphasise practical reality over contractual labels
The FWC applied section 15AA of the Fair Work Act, introduced in August 2024, to address High Court decisions that had narrowed employment classifications.
The new provision requires assessment of relationships based on "real substance, practical reality and true nature" rather than contractual terms alone, considering both written agreements and practical performance.
This legislative change reversed previous restrictive approaches and returned to multifactorial analysis examining control, independence, equipment provision, payment methods, and business integration.
The Commission noted that a comprehensive assessment must consider the totality of working relationships, including how contracts operate in practice rather than theoretical rights and obligations.
The worker's case was evaluated under established common law principles, examining whether he operated as a servant in another's business or conducted his own independent undertaking.
Factors including work scheduling freedom, payment structure, equipment provision, and supervision levels were weighed to determine the relationship's true character.
Independence and minimal control indicate contractor status
The FWC found compelling evidence of independent contractor status through the worker's substantial autonomy over when and how work was performed, minimal platform operator control, and a task-based payment structure.
The worker's ability to determine availability schedules, conduct readings without supervision, and operate concurrent services through other platforms demonstrated independent business operation.
Evidence that the worker provided similar services through Facebook and TikTok during the same period reinforced findings of independent operation rather than exclusive employment commitment.
The minimal earning requirements and absence of ongoing work guarantees contrasted sharply with traditional employment relationships, providing regular hours and predictable income.
While acknowledging that customers might perceive the worker as representing the platform business, the Commission determined that this factor was outweighed by stronger indicators of independent contractor status, including the provision of equipment, payment methods, and operational autonomy throughout the relationship.
