Working as Labour Hire is Not Without Risks: 3 Dismissal Examples

If you are a casual labour hire worker, and your assignment with a client ends, are you dismissed by your employer? This is the question the Fair Work Commission has been tasked with answering many times.

The answer, as you will read in this article, can depend on the terms of the worker’s employment contract and the situation. The three recent Fair Work Commission cases we will discuss in this article show how working as a casual labour hire employee comes with risks.

1. Casual Labour Hire Worker Unfairly Dismissed, But Denied Compensation

This example relates to the Fair Work Commission case Mrs Rose Nagy v Proquest Recruitment [2025]. In 2015, Rose Nagy began working for Workforce Recruitment Labour Services, which later became ProQuest Recruitment. She was employed as a casual labour hire worker.

Throughout her employment, Mrs Nagy worked on placement with Central HealthCare, which later became Sigma HealthCare. Ms Nagy worked full-time hours and occasionally did overtime on the weekend. She worked as a store worker.

Caused mistake at work

In July 2024, the 68-year-old Ms Nagy accidentally swapped the delivery stickers on two boxes, leading to both being sent to the wrong place. A few days later, Sigma HealthCare told ProQuest Recruitment that they no longer wanted Ms Nagy to work for them. In a phone conversation on 21 July 2024, Ms Nagy’s manager told her of this. He said that her assignment with Sigma HealthCare had thus ended.

Felt she was dismissed due to end of assignment

The manager said to Ms Nagy that she still remained an employee of ProQuest Recruitment. He said that they would attempt to find her other work. However, Mr Nagy felt that it was at this point that she had been fired. Around two months later, ProQuest Recruitment offered her short-term work. However, Ms Nagy did not accept the offer.

She made an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. She argued that her phone call with her manager on 21 July was the moment that she was dismissed by ProQuest Recruitment.

Employer denied sacking worker

In response to Ms Nagy’s unfair dismissal claim, ProQuest Recruitment argued to the Fair Work Commission that it did not sack her. The company explained its labour hire agreement with Sigma HealthCare. The agreement said that if a host company finds a worker “unsuitable,” ProQuest Recruitment is obliged to replace the on-hire worker immediately.

Fair Work noted terms of labour hire agreement

At Ms Nagy’s unfair dismissal hearing in January 2025, the Fair Work Commission said that ProQuest Recruitment’s casual employment agreement offered “little other than an opportunity” for its employee to sign up for casual work.

It found that the agreement did not promise them work. It specifically stated that the company had “no obligation” to provide work. It also stated that employees should have zero expectation of long-term employment.

Fair Work Commission referred to precedent

The Fair Work Commission noted that Ms Nagy’s situation was similar to that in the unfair dismissal case Ms Kim Star v WorkPac Pty Ltd [2018]. In that case, the Commission ruled that a casual labour hire worker had been dismissed when their assignment with a client had ceased. The Commission had said that if a labour hire company does not offer an employee work at the end of an assignment, then they have been dismissed.

Turning back to Ms Nagy’s situation, the Fair Work Commission highlighted that ProQuest Recruitment only offered her work two months after her original assignment ended. It said that this gap in finding her new work did not show that their was a continuing employment relationship. The Commission therefore found that Ms Nagy had indeed been fired when her assignment ceased.

Employer had shown ‘absolutely no resistance’ to client’s decision

Despite finding a valid reason for the dismissal, the Fair Work Commission ruled that the termination was harsh, unreasonable and unfair. This was largely due to ProQuest Recruitment’s failure to advocate on behalf of Ms Nagy or challenge Sigma HealthCare’s decision.

The Commission said that the company had shown “absolutely no resistance” to Sigma HealthCare’s decision. It said that the decision ended Ms Nagy’s over eight-year employment relationship with ProQuest Recruitment, which had been “relatively trouble-free.”

The Commission acknowledged that ProQuest Recruitment had no contractual grounds to dispute Sigma HealthCare’s request. However, it said the company did not even attempt to seek other options, including asking Sigma HealthCare to rethink its decision. The Commission said that it would have been reasonable for the company to attempt this, given Ms Nagy’s long service.

Fair Work noted ‘harshness’ of worker’s dismissal

The Fair Work Commission also highlighted that ProQuest Recruitment failed to consult Ms Nagy before deciding to end her employment. The company did not notify her of the reason for her sacking before it took effect. It also did not provide an opportunity for her to respond.

Given that Ms Nagy was 68 years old and had encountered difficulty securing alternative employment, the Commission said that the termination had been “harsh” on her.

Fair Work ‘reluctantly’ declined ordering compensation

While the Fair Work Commission found Ms Nagy’s dismissal to be unfair, it did not order compensation to be paid to her. This was because she was a casual worker whose employment was tied to the Sigma HealthCare assignment. As such, Ms Nagy was not given the expectation of continued employment.

The Commission stated that even if ProQuest Recruitment had made efforts to influence Sigma HealthCare’s decision, Ms Nagy was not entitled to be paid “while she was not performing services”. It concluded that ordering compensation in this instance “would be punitive rather than compensatory.”

The Fair Work Commission said it “reluctantly” found that Ms Nagy did not experience any loss that ProQuest Recruitment should be responsible for.

2. Fair Work Finds Casual Labour Hire Worker was Dismissed

Another recent Fair Work Commission case that involved the dismissal of a labour hire worker is Mr Hugh Mooney v Mr Jamie O’Regan & Unite Resourcing [2025]. Hugh Mooney started working for labour hire company Unite Resourcing on 31 October 2024. On 4 November 2024, the company’s manager sent Mr Mooney an email stating that “you are no longer required to return to site.” The manager said that Mr Mooney could discuss the issue with him further via a phone call or office visit.

To this email, Mr Mooney replied by saying “No [dramas], see you in court.” The manager then told him not to be “silly.” He told Mr Mooney to review his employment contract and to stop making “idle threats.” The manager reiterated that Mr Mooney could visit him in person to discuss the issue. He ended his email by saying to Mr Mooney “you will not be engaged via Unite Resourcing for any future work.”

Mr Mooney subsequently lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission.

Labour hire company denied sacking was unfair

Mr Mooney argued to the Fair Work Commission that he had been unfairly fired. However, Unite Resourcing made a jurisdictional objection to Mr Mooney’s unfair dismissal claim. It disputed that he had been fired by them.

Unite Resourcing said that Mr Mooney had been employed as a casual worker. It said that as such, he had no reasonable expectation of ongoing employment. The company said that Mr Mooney had only been employed for three days and that he had been provided adequate notice of his termination.

It said that his termination had been conducted “professionally.” The company said it provided Mr Mooney payment in lieu instead of a one-day notice period. Unite Resourcing also argued that it had terminated Mr Mooney based on its operational requirements. It said that it had acted in accordance with his casual employment agreement.

Fair Work found worker was dismissed

In considering the jurisdictional objection to Mr Mooney’s unfair dismissal claim, the Fair Work Commission referred to a previous case – Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd [1995]. In that case, it was found that a dismissal occurs when an employer’s actions directly lead to the termination of employment. In addition to this, it found that had the employer not taken such action, the employment relationship would have continued.

Turning back to Mr Mooney’s sacking, the Fair Work Commission found inconsistencies in Unite Resourcing’s arguments. It highlighted that the company relied on a specific clause of Mr Mooney’s employment contract. In that clause, it said that casual employees had no advance commitment to ongoing work.

However, the Commission pointed out that this clause was “not some loophole that means casuals cannot be dismissed.” It stated that the evidence presented by both sides made it “clear” that Mr Mooney’s employment ended at the initiative of Unite Resourcing.

The Fair Work Commission therefore determined that Mr Mooney had in fact been sacked. His claim was allowed to proceed to conciliation.

Read More: What Happens at a Fair Work Conciliation?

3. Labour Hire Worker’s Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected by Fair Work Commission

Another recent Fair Work Commission case that involved the dismissal of a casual labour hire worker is Mr Sean Carpenter v Global Management NSW Pty Ltd [2024]. Sean Carpenter began working for labour hire company Global Management as a casual in July 2024. His employment contract stated that Global Management had the right to change or terminate an assignment without reason. It also said that Mr Carpenter had no entitlement to ongoing employment and that ending an assignment did not mean that he was fired.

Carpenter started working in a client’s warehouse on 29 July 2024. But on 14 September 2024, the client requested his removal, saying he had been “inconsistent with performance and unreliable.” An employee of Global Management later informed Mr Carpenter that his assignment had ended.

He was told that the company would get in touch about any future work opportunities. It said that his employment status remained “active” in its system.

Worker did not turn up to Fair Work hearing

About ten days later, Mr Carpenter lodged a general protections claim with the Fair Work Commission. He claimed that Global Management had dismissed him as retaliation for his asking questions his pay. The Commission had asked both parties to submit evidence prior to a jurisdictional hearing.

However, Mr Carpenter chose not to submit anything. He also did not turn up for the hearing in December 2024. The Commission made several attempts to reach him, but to no avail. Global Management had submitted evidence, and the Commission proceeded with the hearing.

Global Management argued to the Fair Work Commission that it had not fired Mr Carpenter. It said that his employment remained ongoing despite the termination of his assignment with the client.

Fair Work had to consider if worker was dismissed or not

The Commission had to work out whether the end of the assignment constituted a dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. It had to work this out to determine if it had jurisdiction to hear Mr Carpenter’s general protections application.

The Fair Work Commission noted that in some cases an employment relationship between a labour hire company and a worker may be sustained during periods when the worker is not on assignment with a client. The Commission said that this will depend, however, on the employment contract and the “factual matrix” related to the worker and employer.

Fair Work found labour hire worker was not terminated

At the jurisdictional hearing for Mr Carpenter’s general protections claim, the Fair Work Commission sided with Global Management. It ruled that the employment relationship had not been terminated. As evidence of this, the Commission pointed to what the company had told Mr Carpenter following the end of his assignment.

Global Management had said to him that it would “explore other opportunities for him.” It had also made it clear that he would remain an active employee in their system. The Commission also noted that the company’s inability to find Mr Carpenter other work was “reflective” of the labour hire business. It said that this did not mean he had been terminated.

Finding Mr Carpenter had not been dismissed, the Fair Work Commission therefore ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed with his general protections claim. Mr Carpenter’s claim was therefore ordered not to proceed.

Read More: Unlawful Termination and Unfair Dismissal: Key Differences

Have Your Casual Rights Been Violated?

We often deal with cases of casual employees who are no longer offered shifts or are fired for exercising workplace rights. If you have been mistreated as a casual employee, our team of workplace mediators can help you seek compensation for an unfair dismissal.

We help workers in every state and territory, and we offer a no win, no fee service. With our help, you can make sure you get justice and hold your employer to account. Give us a call today on 1300 766 700 or contact us here for a confidential and free consultation.