Worker Finds Out Job Ended Through Centrelink Paperwork – FWC Rules on Dismissal

A casual worker only realised her job had ended when she received an employment separation certificate for Centrelink. Now, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has ruled on whether issuing this document counted as a dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009.

Casual Worker Learns of Job Loss via Centrelink Paperwork

The worker applied for Centrelink payments after her labour hire assignment ended in November 2024. To process her claim, she requested an employment separation certificate from her employer. The document, issued on November 21, 2024, listed “shortage of work” as the reason for her leaving. However, the worker later lodged a claim with the FWC on December 5, 2024, arguing that this certificate proved she had been dismissed. The labour hire company disagreed, saying she was still employed as a casual.

Did the Separation Certificate Prove She Was Dismissed?

The FWC had to decide whether the certificate showed the worker was dismissed under section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act. The labour hire company, which specialises in electrotechnology, construction, and trades, had employed her as a casual project coordinator in January 2024, assigning her to a client’s worksite in Footscray, Victoria. Her contract stated that ending an assignment “does not of itself constitute the termination of employment.” However, after her assignment ended on November 11, 2024, she asked about future work and was told there were limited opportunities, as most of the company’s clients were in Queensland.

FWC Says Centrelink Paperwork Played a Key Role

The FWC noted that the employment separation certificate was key in determining whether the worker had been dismissed. The Commission pointed out that the employer could have written that she left “voluntarily”—but instead, they marked “shortage of work” as the reason for separation. The person who prepared the document was not called to give evidence, leaving the wording of the certificate as the clearest proof of what happened.

The FWC ruled:
“Whether an employment separation certificate is provided at the request of an employee or the employer does not decide whether the termination was a resignation or a dismissal.”

Lack of Employer Contact Suggests the Job Had Ended

The employer argued the worker was still a casual employee. However, after issuing the separation certificate, they had no further contact with her until January 17, 2025, when they sent an email about Queensland-based jobs—after she had already filed her claim. The FWC found that the lack of follow-up suggested her employment had ended. The ruling stated:
“More than just an assignment ending is needed to prove an employment relationship is ongoing.”

FWC Declares It Was a Dismissal

In its final ruling, the FWC found that the employer’s actions amounted to a dismissal under section 386(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act. While the employer may not have intended to dismiss the worker, issuing a separation certificate with “shortage of work” as the reason clearly signalled that her employment had ended. The FWC ruled that the document’s wording was “clear and unambiguous.” Any doubts about whether the worker was dismissed by the employer’s choice were resolved by simply reading the certificate. Since the worker was deemed to have been dismissed, the FWC rejected the employer’s jurisdictional objection, allowing the case to proceed to a conference under section 368 of the Act.