His three-year deal ended on schedule. He called it a dismissal. The Commission disagreed

When a fixed-term contract runs out, has the worker been dismissed - or has the clock simply run out?

That was the question before the Fair Work Commission in a decision handed down on June 9, 2026. The answer matters for any HR team that relies on fixed-term or "maximum term" contracts.

Iain Walker worked as business manager for Australian Composites Manufacturing CRC Ltd. He signed a three-year contract on December 23, 2022, running from February 1, 2023 to January 31, 2026. When that date arrived, his employment ended.

Walker saw it differently. He filed a general protections application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act, arguing the company had dismissed him at its own initiative. A general protections claim lets an employee challenge certain adverse actions by an employer. But there is a catch: under section 365, the claim only works if a "dismissal" actually happened.

The company objected on exactly that point. Walker was on a contract for a specified period, it argued, and the job ended when the period ended. Under section 386(2)(a), that is not a dismissal.

Commissioner Crawford agreed, leaning on a 2024 Full Federal Court ruling, Alouani-Roby v National Rugby League Ltd. That case reset the rules. Before it, a contract that allowed either side to terminate early was often treated as falling outside the "specified period" exception. After it, an early-termination clause...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMizgFBVV95cUxOWHlMOVU3UlRQTVFGUDREbDhW...