the Applicant v Serco Australia Pty Limited
At a glance
- MA000013
What happened
the Applicant worked for Serco Australia Pty Limited from August 2021, initially as a casual employee before transitioning to fixed-term and then full-time employment. His role was at the Adelaide Immigration Detention Centre. In November 2024, Serco learned its contract with the Department of Home Affairs would not be renewed on December 10, 2024. A handover process began to Secure Journeys, the incoming service provider. the Applicant applied for and accepted a position with Secure Journeys on April 13, 2025, and his last day with Serco was May 5, 2025. Serco communicated various updates to employees regarding redeployment options and the process for those accepting roles with Secure Journeys.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant’s employment was terminated by Serco Australia Pty Limited, dismissing his jurisdictional objection. The Commission noted Serco's communication to employees stating that anyone agreeing to ongoing employment with Secure Journeys would bring their employment with Serco to an end. the Commissioner considered the chronology of events and correspondence between Serco and its employees, concluding that a dismissal had occurred despite the Applicant accepting a role with Secure Journeys prior to his last day with Serco.
What it means for employers
Employers should be cautious about how they communicate termination processes, particularly when transitioning services to another provider. Statements suggesting employment ends upon acceptance of a new role can be interpreted as an explicit dismissal and may impact legal challenges regarding unfair dismissal or redundancy entitlements. Clear communication is essential but must align with legal obligations.
What it means for employees
Employees facing similar situations should carefully review all communications from their employer, understand the implications of accepting alternative employment, and seek advice if unsure about their rights and entitlements related to termination or redundancy.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.