Was it a cancelled shift, or a dismissal? Fair Work draws the line
A casual warehouse worker took his labour hire agency and host employer to the Fair Work Commission, alleging his shifts were cancelled over a refused fist bump and unpaid stay-backs.
In a decision handed down on 8 May, 2026 (May 2026), Commissioner Redford of the Fair Work Commission dismissed the general protections application brought by Moustafa Guessab, who represented himself, against labour hire agency Ozstaff Holdings and host employer Active Managed Logistics Solutions (AML).
Guessab began working for Ozstaff on a casual basis on about 10 November, 2025 (November 2025) and was placed from the commencement of his employment at the CEVA distribution centre in Truganina, working for AML. His placement was short-lived. His last shift at the site was on 26 November, 2025 (November 2025).
According to the decision, Guessab believed his shifts were cancelled for reasons that included his refusal to fist bump his supervisor, to stay and engage in extended personal goodbyes, and to stay back after his shift without pay. Those workplace culture allegations were not tested or resolved by the Commission, but they sat at the heart of why Guessab brought his application.
Guessab filed his application on 4 December, 2025 (December 2025), directed against AML. He was later granted leave to add Ozstaff as a second respondent on 20 April, 2026 (April 2026).
Both companies argued he had not been dismissed. AML said it was never his legal employer, a point Guessab conceded at hearing. As the Commissioner put it, "But, if it was never his legal employer, it could not have 'dismissed' him within the meaning of the Act."
The harder question was whether Ozstaff, the agency that did employ him, had dismissed him.
Between 26 November, 2025 (November 2025) and 2 December, 2025 (December 2025), Ozstaff made some effort to determine why AML no longer wanted Guessab's services, before it appeared to have been determined that there was no prospect of him being permitted to return to AML. On about 2 December, 2025 (December 2025), Ozstaff contacted him about a placement at Elite Logistics in Truganina. There were back-and-forth communications, and on 8 December, 2025 (December 2025), Ozstaff told him those shifts had been cancelled due to insufficient work volume.
Guessab said that when the Elite Logistics role fell through, he concluded Ozstaff was not serious about finding him work, and that his employment had effectively ended. Ozstaff conceded it offered no further shifts after the end of December 2025 (December 2025), despite work being available in January and February 2026.
The Commissioner described the evidence on both sides as vague, noting that Mr Pillay, Ozstaff's HR and OHS Manager, largely relied on what he said he had been told by his office manager about attempts to contact Guessab and discuss work opportunities. The Commissioner found that at least some effort to find Guessab work during December 2025 occurred, but observed that the fact no work eventuated supported the notion, to some extent, that these efforts were "less than rigorous."
There was also a dispute about shift length. Guessab conceded he told Ozstaff he would prefer a six-hour shift because of family responsibilities but did not refuse eight-hour placements.
On 23 December, 2025 (December 2025), Ozstaff issued Guessab a Separation Certificate, which apparently indicated the reason for the end of the employment was "unavailability of work." Guessab said he asked Ozstaff to issue it because he had been told to do so by Centrelink. Crucially, he conceded he was never told he was dismissed, was sacked, or that his employment was terminated.
The timing question proved decisive. The Commissioner found that on 4 December, 2025 (December 2025), when the application was filed, the Elite Logistics placement was still a possibility. While a stronger dismissal argument might have existed by January or February 2026 (February 2026), when months had elapsed without an offer of work, that inference could not be drawn at the application date. The application was dismissed.
The case is a reminder that workplace culture grievances, including expectations around physical greetings, after-shift socialising and unpaid time, can quickly escalate into formal claims. For labour hire agencies, it underscores the need for clear, well-documented redeployment efforts when a host placement ends, and contemporaneous records rather than second-hand accounts when matters reach the Commission.
