FWC finds 'shifts on hold' ended pregnant casual's employment
A pregnant casual at Amazon’s distribution centre has won reinstatement and backpay after the Fair Work Commission found she was unfairly dismissed following a text message that put her shifts “on hold”.
In a decision issued on 28 November 2025, Deputy President Easton found that Adecco Industrial Australia unfairly dismissed Dupinder Kaur, a casual “pick packing associate” who consistently worked full time hours over a seven‑month assignment at Amazon’s Kemps Creek site in Sydney.
Kaur began working at the distribution centre on 30 October 2024. Her role involved picking parcels, using a step ladder and scanning items. She said she earned on average $1,426 per week and received no formal warnings or complaints during her employment.
On 25 May 2025, shortly before 8:30 p.m., Kaur told an Adecco employee she was about seven weeks pregnant and feeling dizzy while using a ladder. That evening she emailed a medical certificate stating she was in early pregnancy, was getting back pains and was advised not to climb ladders or lift heavy weights. The next day she provided a second certificate advising her to avoid stairs and bending and not lift more than 5kg, while stating she was otherwise fit to work.
Shifts that week, including training Kaur later described as “for Packing”, were cancelled and her shifts were placed “on hold”. On 28 May 2025, she emailed an Amazon employee, attaching the second certificate and asking for help with her shifts and packing training. She then worked two night shifts on “light duties” on 1 and 2 June 2025, which Adecco rostered to accommodate her medical restrictions.
At 2:04 a.m. on 5 June 2025, Kaur received a detailed SMS from Adecco. It stated that, due to her lifting restriction of less than 5kg, “no suitable on-site accommodations can be made at this time” and “no light duties are available”. The message said that because she had only P2R training, Adecco could not place her elsewhere, that her shifts would be “put on hold”, and that as a casual employee there was “no guarantee of work and no obligations to provide you with shifts”.
Later that day, Kaur replied by SMS and email. She said her packing training had been due the previous week and could still be provided, noted she had been given light duty work for her last two shifts, and said she had now been told no work was available “due to my pregnancy situation which is unfair and discriminated behaviour”. She wrote that she had informed Adecco so she could get support, “not to get laid off from work”, and warned that if no accommodation could be made she would take the matter to the Fair Work Commission. Adecco did not respond, and she was not offered any further shifts. She began applying for other jobs from 10 June 2025 and lodged an unfair dismissal application on 11 June 2025.
Adecco argued that Kaur had not been dismissed, that she remained employed, and that her assignment and profile at Amazon were still active. It submitted that shifts could be offered, but that it was not incumbent on the employer to offer work while she claimed she had been dismissed.
The Commission rejected that view. Deputy President Easton found that Adecco dismissed Kaur on 5 June 2025 when it advised her that her shifts were “on hold” and then took no steps that were consistent with the continuation of the employment relationship. The decision noted the absence of direct evidence about who made the decision, what information they relied on and why light duties, which had been provided on 1 and 2 June, were no longer available three days later.
The Commission found there was no valid reason for dismissal related to Kaur’s capacity, given she had recently worked two light‑duties shifts under the same medical restrictions. It held that she was afforded no procedural fairness. The dismissal was found to be harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
Adecco was ordered to reinstate Kaur to the position she held immediately before her dismissal, by no later than 19 December 2025, to treat her employment as continuous, and to pay $14,830.40 in lost remuneration, less tax, plus superannuation.
For HR: putting a pregnant casual’s shifts “on hold” without clear communication, evidence and genuine adjustment efforts can be treated as a dismissal – with costly consequences.
