She said her job was ongoing - the Commission checked the contract's end date
A government lawyer argued her job was really ongoing. The Fair Work Commission said her contract simply ended - and threw out her case.
When a fixed-term contract runs out and an employer chooses not to renew it, has the worker been dismissed? For any HR team that relies on fixed terms, the answer decides whether a claim can even begin. A Fair Work Commission decision handed down on June 1, 2026 draws the line clearly.
Hasna Shiraz worked as a lawyer for the Department of Education on a fixed-term contract, classified at the VPS5 level. On December 12, 2025, she was told the contract would not be extended, with the Department citing a lack of funding. Her employment ended on January 15, 2026 - the same cessation date written into her contract.
She then filed under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. According to the decision, the evident basis for her claim was her belief that she had been dismissed because she made complaints about her employment and because she exercised workplace rights in accessing parental leave.
The Department went straight to a threshold question. It argued she had not been dismissed at all. Under section 386(2)(a) of the Act, a worker is not dismissed if they were hired for a "specified period of time" and the job ends when that period ends. No dismissal means no jurisdiction - and nothing for the Commission to resolve.
Shiraz argued the fixed term was a formality. According to the decision, she said she was told at her job interview that fixed-term contracts were used for "administrative reasons," and that employees were "often provided opportunities to continue in the roles or re-apply for their positions unless exceptional circumstances arose." She pointed to ongoing, generalist legal work, colleagues kept on past their end dates, and a similar role advertised in her team.
Parts of that picture held up. Under cross-examination, the Department's general counsel agreed there was no specific task or project that ended on Shiraz's end date. She agreed the work unit kept doing the same legal work afterward, including by lawyers at the same VPS5 level. She agreed funding existed for another VPS5 position until September 2026, which management chose not to re-advertise or fill after an unsuccessful recruitment process. And she agreed it was open to the Department to redeploy Shiraz or re-advertise, but it chose not to.
It still wasn't enough. Commissioner Clarke accepted that the work could have continued and that the Department had options it chose not to take. But both sides agreed the employment ended on the contract's stated date. The Commissioner set the case apart from an earlier decision, D'Lima v Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, where a worker had been subject to fourteen documents and routinely worked past her end dates, sometimes on backdated agreements. No such system existed here.
So the conclusion followed plainly. Shiraz was employed for a specified period, that period ended, and section 386(2)(a) applied. She had not been dismissed. The Commission had no jurisdiction, and her application was dismissed.
For HR leaders, the takeaway is concrete. A genuine fixed-term contract with a real end date can expire without becoming a dismissal - even when the work carries on, and even when renewal was possible. The catch is that the contract has to be genuine. As the decision notes, a variation, a replacement contract, an estoppel, or a "sham" arrangement can change the legal picture - and the Act's own anti-avoidance rule in section 386(3) targets fixed terms used to dodge obligations. The lesson is to keep fixed-term arrangements clean, documented, and true to how the work is actually performed.
