Ending of Long-term Labour Hire Relationship Deemed Unfair

The Fair Work Commission has ruled that the ending of a long-term engagement by a labour-hire employee with a particular client constituted a termination at the initiative of the employer. However, despite this finding and concerns about the lack of effort made by the employer to offer other employment, the Commission has determined that no compensation should be paid to the former worker.

Mrs N is a 68-year-old female employee who commenced employment as a casual labour-hire worker with Workforce Recruitment Labour Hire Services Pty Ltd in late 2015. She was assigned to work as a Store Worker with Central HealthCare, where she remained for the duration of her employment.

During her employment, the staff of Workforce Recruitment, including RN, were transitioned to ProQuest Recruitment Pty Ltd, and Central HealthCare were rebranded as Sigma HealthCare.

Mrs N worked 37.5 hours per week, Monday through Friday, and occasionally worked Saturday overtime.

On either 15 or 16 July 2024, Mrs N mistakenly swapped the labels on two delivery boxes, leading to each box being delivered to the wrong address. Several days later, Sigma requested that ProQuest no longer assign her to perform work for them.

On 21 July 2024, ProQuest's Business Manager contacted her to inform her of Sigma's request to have her removed from the site and, consequently, that her assignment with Sigma had ended. The manager told her that she remained employed by ProQuest and that they intended to find her other employment consistent with her experience and availability.

However, Mrs N did not accept that she was still employed by ProQuest and believed she had been terminated following the phone call.

Commissioner Damian Sloan first had to determine whether Ms N had been terminated, as ProQuest maintained that the employment relationship was still live, citing an email sent to her on 2 September 2024 suggesting a short-term assignment may be available.

Commissioner Sloan highlighted that there was no evidence available of the terms on which Mrs N was initially engaged, although a Casual Employment Agreement (CEA) originating from 2022 existed. In agreeing with her submission, the Commissioner noted the CEA offered little opportunity to register as a candidate for casual work and made it clear that ProQuest had no obligation to provide an employee with work and that an employee can have no expectation of 'ongoing employment'.

Consequently, Commissioner Sloan noted,

"I am satisfied that Mrs (N) was dismissed by ProQuest when it brought the assignment to an end on 21 July 2024".

Commissioner Sloan accepted that Mrs N's error was grounds for termination, particularly given that she had made mistakes in the past. However, he raised specific concerns with her employer's conduct, noting that…

"The dismissal was unreasonable. ProQuest did not consult with Mrs (N) before it made the decision to terminate her employment. It made no attempt to explore alternatives to dismissal, including asking Sigma to reconsider its instruction that Mrs (N) be removed from site. This was particularly unreasonable in light of her tenure and employment record".

Somewhat reluctantly, despite finding that the termination was both harsh and unreasonable, the Commissioner did not order the payment of any compensation. This decision was based on Mrs N being a casual employee, her employment being tied to the Sigma assignment, and the decision to block access to the site not being under ProQuest's control.

Mrs RN v Proquest Recruitment [2025] FWC 78 (10 January 2025)

For queries about terminating employees, appropriate consultation, labour hire, or other employment questions, please contact Dean Cameron at Workforce Advisory Lawyers – We Know Employment Law on 0417 622 178, 1300 WAL LAW or via email to [email protected]

Disclaimer: This information is provided as general advice on workplace relations and employment law. It does not constitute legal advice, and it is always advisable to seek further information regarding specific workplace issues. Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation.