The applicant, a Canteen Assistant, lodged a claim of unfair dismissal against the respondent employer. The respondent raised a jurisdictional objection to the application, contending that as the applicant was employed as a casual employee, she was not eligible to make the claim.

The applicant contended that she was unfairly dismissed and was not informed that she was employed on a casual basis. She claimed that her permanent work shifts were on Fridays during the school term and that she covered shifts for other staff when needed. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that all her staff, including the applicant, were employed as casuals under the same award and written employment contracts. The respondent argued that there was no firm advance commitment to ongoing work and that the applicant was aware of her casual status.

As there is no dismissal when the employment relationship between a casual employee and their employer ends in accordance with the terms of the contract, Commissioner Tsang reviewed the evidence to determine the nature of the employment relationship. The Commissioner heard evidence, including that the applicant was paid a casual loading, the nature of the employment relationship as having commenced to “fill the gap” left following the resignation of another employee, and that the written contract of employment described the nature of the employment relationship as casual.

Finding that the nature of the employment relationship was indeed casual, and that the employment relationship had ended in accordance with the terms of the contract, Commissioner Tsang determined that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to deal with the application, and accordingly it was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.