Resources: Blogs

Late withdrawal


Employer’s withdrawal of role constituted dismissal from employment

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.

In Argentier v City Perfume Retail Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1819, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) determined that a casual employee was dismissed from her employment and dismissed the employer’s jurisdictional objection.

In April 2023, the employee applied fora casual position of Brand Ambassador. After she attended the interview, she was advised that she was successful in her application and would have to complete the onboarding process. This included completion of forms and joining an application the employer used to assign rosters – which the employee completed. After signing the employment contract on 12 April 2023, the employee was advised that her onboarding was complete and would be rostered on for work the following week. The employee’s first shift was rostered for 20 April 2023.

Before her first shift, the employer notified the employee that new starters would be required to attend a training session at its head office. On 18 April 2023, after being advised that the training session was unpaid “professional development”, the employee advised the employer she would not be attending. The employer responded that the session was a masterclass and would be beneficial for her own knowledge and while she would not be paid, she would receive a gift. The employee again confirmed that she would not be attending the unpaid training session.

The employer subsequently sent a message to the employee stating that the Brand Ambassador role had been withdrawn and the role was no longer available. The employee’s rostered shifts were also removed.

The employee lodged an application alleging that she was dismissed in contravention of the general protections provisions.

The employer lodged a jurisdictional objection claiming that the employee could not have been “dismissed” because her employment with them had not actually started. The employer’s position was that the employee had not officially started and had not undertaken any duties which she was instructed to perform. The employer also argued that she had not completed her onboarding and induction and had not been given company access.

The employer also argued that there was nothing in writing in which stated that they had dismissed the employee and alternatively, that it was the employee’s own message which suggested that the employee had terminated her own employment.

The FWC found that there was an employment relationship which existed between the employer and employee even though she had not performed any work for the employer. For the FWC, the employment relationship had commenced and had come into effect by 18 April 2023. The employment contract was signed by both parties on 13 April 2023 and stated that the contract was made on 6 April 2023 and would commence on 18 April 2023.

The FWC also found that there was “no doubt” that it was the employer who terminated the employee’s employment, and that the message to the employee was written notice of termination.

Lessons for employers

The general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) apply to casual employees – which means that they are protected from adverse action (including dismissal from employment) taken because of a prohibited reason. Regular and systematic casual employees may also be protected from unfair dismissal.

Employers should always exercise caution when withdrawing offers of employment or rostered hours of work from casual employees to ensure they are not exposed to claims of adverse action or unfair dismissal.  


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

"...Ready for it?" - Casuals and Contractors

Join us in our next webinar as our Managing Director and Principal, Athena Koelmeyer, explores two key areas that have undergone significant change over the past few years and will undergo yet another change under these amendments – that is, the changes to casual employment and the new definition of employment.


Failure to warn employee renders dismissal unfair

Template lesson

Many businesses, and in particular small businesses employers subscribe to human resources information systems which offer access to template letters and policies to provide a ready-made solution or to manage human resources administration.


Employee unfairly dismissed for requesting family and domestic violence leave

Boiling point

All employees (including part-time and casual employees) will soon have the entitlement to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave per year under the National Employment Standards, replacing the existing entitlement to five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave.


Full Federal Court rejects employers bid to quash decision which found employees were not genuinely redundant

Where does it end?

Section 389(2) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides that a dismissal will not be a case of “genuine redundancy” if it “would have been reasonable in all of the circumstances” for the employee to be redeployed within the employer’s enterprise or the enterprise of an associated entity.


Bullying prosecution leads to conviction and fine for company and its director

I knew you were trouble

Under work health and safety legislation, persons conducting a business or undertaking have duties to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers in the workplace. It is also accepted that workplace bullying is a risk to health and safety of workers which needs to be managed as any other health and safety risk.


Victoria records first workplace manslaughter conviction

Various Australian jurisdictions have been slowly introducing an offence of industrial manslaughter, dealing with workplace fatalities that arise as a result of negligent conduct by a person conducting a business or undertaking or its officers.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.