How a roster app update with no direct conversation led to a Fair Work ruling
He showed up for his shift, just not at the right time. The Fair Work Commission upheld his dismissal on 23 March 2026.
Matthew Kahler had been a casual Disability and Mental Health Support Worker at Aspire Community Solutions Pty Ltd since 30 August 2024. On 22 October 2025, he arrived to care for a high-needs participant at his regular shift time, unaware that the schedule had been updated in the Shiftcare rostering app around 13 October 2025. He had not checked the app.
It was not the first time. On 2 April 2025, Kahler failed to attend a rostered shift with a high-needs participant and recorded case notes in Shiftcare for a shift he did not work. Aspire issued a formal written warning on 8 April 2025. On 29 April 2025, he missed a transport shift with a participant, again failing to check his roster, and that participant's mother requested a different carer. Aspire did not issue a formal warning for that incident, deeming it lower risk. A performance review on 30 April 2025 set a clear objective: check the roster weekly.
When Kahler arrived at the wrong time on 22 October 2025, Aspire had to arrange urgent cover for the participant at a cost to the business. Commissioner Crawford found that operating within the National Disability Insurance Scheme meant "it is critical for Aspire to be confident that care workers will attend their rostered shifts, particularly for participants with high care needs."
Aspire sent a show cause letter on 28 October 2025. The following day, Kahler attended a meeting with management, with his ex-wife as a support person. During the meeting, Kahler and his ex-wife agreed on childcare arrangements that would allow him to work later shifts. Management paused the meeting for around 30 minutes to seek advice before returning with a termination letter. Kahler was dismissed on 29 October 2025.
Commissioner Crawford found a valid reason for dismissal and that Aspire had followed proper process. Several factors weighed toward harshness, including Kahler's sound performance as a support worker, a recent divorce and single-parenting responsibilities, long-standing mental health challenges, and the view that the October 2025 conduct was not highly serious. The Commissioner also noted that Aspire may have paid insufficient attention to Kahler's willingness to adjust his childcare arrangements during the termination meeting, and that the shift change had not been directly discussed with him.
Set against those factors, the Commissioner found that Aspire's decision to retain Kahler after the April 2025 incident, when he had recorded case notes for a shift he did not attend, weighed against a finding of harshness. The Commissioner also noted that while Kahler's retention of private and confidential client information after his employment ended was not considered deliberate, it still weighed against him, given he had been directed to return Aspire's property in his termination letter. "I came very close to finding that Mr Kahler's dismissal was harsh..." Commissioner Crawford wrote, but found on balance the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The application was dismissed on 23 March 2026.
The case is a reminder that when digital tools like rostering apps are the primary means of communicating shift changes, the obligation to monitor them needs to be clearly documented and regularly reinforced. Where significant changes are made to established shift patterns, direct communication with the worker, rather than a platform update alone, can become a relevant consideration in any subsequent dismissal process.
The case also raises an important point about the timing of mental health disclosures. Kahler's challenges were acknowledged as weighing toward harshness, but because he had not requested any workplace adjustments before his dismissal, it carried limited weight. For HR teams, that points to the value of building accessible channels for employees to raise wellbeing concerns before disciplinary matters arise.
