the Applicant v Serco Australia Pty Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2306
At a glance
- Awards cited
- 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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2306.pdfWant 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.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
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.
Just need today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
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 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