Can a casual employee be unfairly dismissed?
After not working for several months, a casual employee received an email from his employer stating that they would not be offering him any more shifts. After receiving this email, the casual employee claimed he was unfairly dismissed.
The worker said that he had been available for work and sought shifts, but the employer had stopped offering him work despite him calling the store and updating his availability. Furthermore, the casual employee stated other casual employees were receiving shifts and that the employer failed to properly communicate with him.
The Company explained that the employee had been employed as a casual since 2021 and typically worked morning shifts starting at 6:00 AM but in early 2024, he changed his availability to start no earlier than 9:00 AM due to family responsibilities. As the shifts in the employee’s usual department had to start at 6:00 AM to meet operational requirements, the employee was offered shifts in another department but declined.
After not working for 60 days, the employer sent an email asking the employee to update his availability and also warned if his availability did not meet operational needs, the employer would not be able to offer him any further shifts. After receiving no response, the employer sent another email stating that as the employee had not worked a single shift in over 90 days and as has not advised of his availability, he will not be offered any further casual shifts. The employee said he had not seen these emails.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) determined that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable and that the employer had a valid reason for ending the employment, as the employee’s availability did not match business requirements. Further to this, the FWC also found the worker had been informed of the risk of termination and given an opportunity to update his availability before his employment ended.
The decision highlights casual employment does not guarantee ongoing work and employers may allocate shifts based on business needs and the Commission found the employer’s decision not to offer further shifts was consistent with its operational requirements.