Shifts in every one of 62 weeks shaped the Commission's jurisdiction ruling
A pool operator argued a casual lifeguard could not bring an unfair dismissal claim. The Fair Work Commission disagreed.
The ruling, handed down in Brisbane on July 15, 2026, carries a familiar lesson for HR: a casual label does not, on its own, decide who can access the unfair dismissal system. What matters is how the work actually ran.
The worker began as a casual lifeguard with Just Sports N Fitness, operated by Australian Crawl (Goodna) Pty Ltd, which runs seasonal aquatic facilities in Queensland. He later moved into a casual duty manager role. After being stood down and then dismissed in February 2026, he lodged an unfair dismissal application.
The employer sought to end the claim before it was heard. It argued the worker was a casual who had not served the minimum employment period - the length of service someone needs before they can bring an unfair dismissal claim. Because the business was not a small business employer, that period was six months. If the objection succeeded, there would be no claim to answer.
The Commission worked through three questions: was he a regular casual employee, did he reasonably expect the work to continue, and had he served at least six months.
The employer relied on the variability of the roster. It said the worker had no fixed hours or days, took opening, closing, mid and weekend shifts according to operational demand, and was often offered shifts the day...
A journalist who spread false information about the family of then-presidential candidate Lee Jae Myung ahead of the 21st presidential election was fined. The Dae-gu District Court Andong Branch C...