A single line of automated payroll text sent this casual worker straight to the Commission
A casual worker who took an automated payslip notation as proof he had been sacked has lost his general protections bid before the Fair Work Commission.
In a decision handed down on 14 May 2026, Commissioner Matheson ruled that Shahab Rezaei was never actually dismissed by labour hire firm Specialised Shutdown Support — even though his payslip plainly stated his employment had ended on 31 July 2025 (Shahab Rezaei v Specialised Shutdown Support Pty Ltd, David Goodes, Luke Archer [2026] FWC 1715).
The story began on 26 June 2025, when Rezaei was hired as a casual Work Management Specialist and sent to a mining client's site on 4 July. He lasted four days. The host employer wanted someone fluent in SAP management software, and Rezaei was not. He was pulled off site and flown home.
What followed was, in the employer's own words, a "large miscommunication." The company apologised, arranged a half-day of SAP training on 11 July, and rostered Rezaei for upcoming shifts. Those shifts were later cancelled. On 29 July, Rezaei emailed asking for between $22,000 and $25,500 in compensation for lost hours, adding that he wanted the matter sorted before being considered for more work. The same day, a manager tried calling and texting him. Rezaei did not call back.
Then came the payslip. On 12 August, Rezaei received pay documentation showing zero hours worked and a line reading "Employment Ended: 31/07/2025." Ten days later, he was at the Commission alleging dismissal.
The employer's explanation was less dramatic than it looked. Its general manager told the Commission the company uses third-party payroll software that charges per active licence and offers no way to pause individual accounts. To save money, dormant workers are routinely deactivated. On 31 July, Rezaei's licence was switched off alongside those of 27 others with no scheduled work. The "Employment Ended" wording, the company said, was simply what the software spat out.
Commissioner Matheson accepted that explanation, calling the notation "an unfortunate consequence" of how the payroll system worked rather than evidence of a sacking. The suspension of Rezaei's work email during an August IT audit was also brushed aside, given he had not worked a shift since early July.
The Commissioner distinguished two recent rulings Rezaei leaned on — Della Marta v CBK NSW Pty Ltd and Ulasowski v Neurophysiology Services Australia Pty Ltd — noting that in both cases employers had taken deliberate, layered steps to end the relationship. Here, she found, there was "no action by the First Respondent that was intended to bring the employment of the Applicant to an end." The application was dismissed.
For HR teams, the case is a quiet warning about the gap between what a payroll system says and what an employer actually means. Automated offboarding triggers, licence-based billing, and dormant casual accounts can together produce paperwork that reads, to the worker on the receiving end, like a termination letter. The Commission may eventually accept the explanation — but only after the claim has already landed.
The practical takeaways are unglamorous but useful. Audit how your payroll and HRIS platforms handle inactive casuals. Keep lines of communication open with workers between engagements. And if a system is going to generate the words "Employment Ended," make sure someone is ready to explain why.
