the Applicant v Australian Crawl (Goodna) Pty Ltd Trading AS Just Sports N Fitness
Citation: [2026] FWC 2672
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked as a casual lifeguard and later a casual duty manager for Australian Crawl (Goodna) Pty Ltd T/A Just Sports N Fitness from October 2023 to March 2024, then again from December 2024 until his dismissal in February 2026. He applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy. Just Sports argued the Applicant was a casual employee and hadn't met the minimum employment period to be protected from unfair dismissal.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant had met the minimum employment period requirement, dismissing Just Sport’s jurisdictional objection. The Commission determined he was a regular casual employee with a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment. Evidence showed consistent work offered and accepted over 62 weeks, averaging 31.28 hours per week. The application for unfair dismissal will proceed to case management.
What it means for employers
Employers need to carefully assess the classification of employees as 'casual' versus other classifications. Even with casual roles, regular and systematic employment patterns can lead to an employee being considered continuously employed for unfair dismissal purposes. Consistent work offers and acceptance over time are key factors in determining whether a casual employee has a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment.
What it means for employees
Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed should understand the minimum employment period requirements. Even if classified as 'casual', consistent work patterns can establish continuous service, entitling them to unfair dismissal protections. Keep records of offered and accepted shifts to support any claims.
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/2026fwc2672.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. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
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 →