Worker had clearance issues and client complaints but the employer said he stayed employed
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a general protections application involving dismissal from a casual security guard who argued his employment was terminated after he was removed from client sites and asked to return his uniform.
The worker had been employed for approximately one year when issues arose regarding client complaints and a child safety prohibition notice.
The employer contended the worker remained employed on a casual basis but had no active work assignments that fit his circumstances.
The worker pointed to being asked to return his uniform in April 2025 as evidence of dismissal.
The employer argued it continued to offer shifts based on client demand and the worker's available qualifications.
The employer raised a jurisdictional objection on the grounds that the worker was not dismissed within the meaning of section 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The case required the FWC to examine whether a casual employee who experiences a reduction or cessation of shifts has been dismissed, and whether requesting the return of a uniform constitutes termination of employment.
The worker signed a casual employment agreement on 15 May 2024, which stated: "By accepting casual employment, you accept that we are offering you no firm advance commitment to ongoing work with an agreed pattern of work."
The agreement provided that work allocation was based on client demand and...
What You Need to Know The motion comes as class action attorneys are grappling with the advent of third parties that, through the use of technology, have advertised their services to assist poten...