[2025] FWC 978
Citation: [2025] FWC 978
What happened
Sarah Murray (Applicant) sought to challenge her alleged dismissal by 239 Brunswick Pty Ltd (First Respondent) and Mr. Moussa Raffoul (Second Respondent) under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Applicant claimed she was employed under the Live Performance Award 2020 and her dismissal breached workplace laws. The Respondents argued she was an independent contractor, not an employee, and therefore could not have been dismissed. The Applicant entered into an agreement with the First Respondent in September 2023, requiring her to pay reservation fees and pay clients directly. She was not provided with uniforms or benefits like superannuation. The Applicant failed to file material in response to directions and did not appear at the hearing.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission determined that Sarah Murray was not an employee of 239 Brunswick Pty Ltd and was not dismissed by them. The Commission rejected the Respondents’ jurisdictional objection. The Applicant failed to provide evidence to support her claim. The Commission noted that, because she was not an employee, her application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act could not proceed. The Applicant did not appear at the hearing and failed to comply with directions to file material.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully review their contracts with workers to ensure they accurately reflect the nature of the working relationship. Misclassifying employees as independent contractors can have serious legal consequences if a dispute arises. The Commission’s decision highlights the importance of adhering to the 'ordinary meaning' of 'employee' and 'employer' as defined in the Fair Work Act.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of their rights and responsibilities under Australian workplace law. If you believe you have been wrongly classified as an independent contractor, seek legal advice. The Fair Work Commission's decision emphasizes that a valid dismissal claim requires a genuine employer-employee relationship.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc978.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted by AI from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →