Worker deallocated from client bookings after complaint: is it dismissal?

A casual translator was deallocated from his forthcoming client bookings on 18 July 2025 after the employer received a complaint regarding the employee involving conduct associated with his work at that client. 

While the client's work formed the vast majority of his work for the employer, the employee retained some ongoing assignments, including work involving another tribunal. 

The employee sent an email on 16 August 2025 stating there were two jobs from the tribunal that the employer had not removed from his portal yet, hoping the employer would assign them to whoever they wanted and not blame him for the late return. 

The commission examined whether the employee was dismissed within the meaning of the Act after the employee claimed he was unfairly dismissed.

Employer received complaint about employee's conduct

The commission found the employee accepted an offer of casual employment with the employer on 22 May 2023 when he signed a letter of engagement dated 12 May 2023.

The commission found that the letter of engagement outlined that the employee's employment was on a casual basis, as required, and that there was no guarantee of ongoing or regular work. 

The commission found the letter of engagement also stated that the employee could choose the assignments allocated to him and that he was not obligated to accept all assignments offered to him.

The commission found on 17 July 2025 that the employer received a complaint regarding the employee's conduct associated with his work at the client.

The commission found this resulted in the employer sending an email to the employee on 18 July 2025, which stated the employer was writing to inform him that concerns had been raised regarding his conduct at a booking and the employer would be reviewing the concerns further, inviting him to reach out if he wanted to discuss the matter further.

Employee retained ongoing assignments with tribunal

The commission found that at that point, the employee was deallocated his forthcoming client bookings. The commission found that while his client's work formed the vast majority of his work for the employer, the employee retained some ongoing assignments, including work involving the tribunal. 

The commission found on 16 August 2025, the employee sent an email to the employer in which he stated, "Plz be informed that there are two jobs from [tribunal] that you have not removed from my portal yet. Hope you assign them to whoever you want and do not blame me for late return."

The commission found that the employee said that the next time he was offered work for the employer was on 7 November 2025, which was after he had lodged his unfair dismissal application.

Commission examines whether employee was dismissed

The commission found that if the employee was not dismissed by the employer within the meaning of the Act, there was no jurisdictional basis for him to pursue an unfair dismissal application. 

The commission found more specifically that if the employee's employment was not terminated at the initiative of the employer, or if the finding was that he was not forced to resign because of conduct or a course of conduct engaged in by the employer, there was no jurisdictional basis for him to pursue his unfair dismissal application.

The commission found it was not persuaded that the employee's employment was terminated at the initiative of the employer. The commission found the 18 July 2025 email did not notify the employee that he was dismissed. 

The commission found that it advised that the employer would be reviewing concerns it had arising out of what had been reported to it regarding the employee's conduct involving work at the client and invited him to "reach out" if he wanted to discuss the matter further.

The commission found that, in the meantime, the employee retained other work for the employer, including with the tribunal.

Did the employee resign?

The commission found as to whether there had been a dismissal, the employee maintained he did not resign from his employment, whereas the employer had outlined in the employer's response that it took the employee's 16 August 2025 email to be his resignation. 

The commission found it did not consider, however, that the employee resigned. The commission found this was because there was no resignation enunciated by him, and his evidence before the commission was that he had not resigned.

The commission found it otherwise noted that the test to be applied was whether the employer engaged in conduct with the intention of bringing the employee's employment to an end or whether termination of the employment was the probable result of the employer's conduct such that the employee had no effective or real choice but to resign. 

The commission found in this case, it did not consider that it was the employer's intention to bring the employee's employment to an end because it had advised it was reviewing the complaint made against him not that it was dismissing him, it had not withdrawn all of the employee's assignments, the employee was a casual employee under agreed terms that stated that he had no guarantee of ongoing or regular work, and two further assignments were offered to the employee on 7 November 2025.

Commission concludes no dismissal occurred

The commission found that whereas the Act required the commission to be satisfied that the employee was dismissed, it had concluded that there was no dismissal within the meaning of the Act. 

It found it had concluded there was no termination of the employee's employment on the employer's initiative, and it had not been contended by the employee, nor had it been persuaded that the employee resigned. 

The commission found further that it had not been persuaded that the employer engaged in conduct or a course of conduct with the intention of bringing the employment to an end or that the termination of the employee's employment was the probable result of the employer's conduct.

It found the effect of its conclusion that the employee was not dismissed was that it was satisfied there was no harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal.

The commission found that it had not been persuaded that the employee had been unfairly dismissed and his application failed and must therefore be dismissed.