the Applicant v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Citation: [2026] FWC 2714
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a casual journalist at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), filed for unfair dismissal in February 2026. He claims he was dismissed on February 20, 2026, when he wasn't offered shifts on a fortnightly roster. The ABC argues the Applicant wasn’t dismissed and that his employment remains ongoing as a casual employee. the Applicant worked regularly from September 2024 until December 2024 took carer leave then hours were reduced in November 2025 and further again in December to February. He received a pay rise in July 2025, but shifts decreased, with a new casual taking over his radio shift.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant was not dismissed by the ABC. The Commission considered whether his lack of rostered shifts constituted dismissal under s.386 of the Fair Work Act 2009. While the Applicant believed he was dismissed due to the absence of shifts, the Commission noted he continued to be offered occasional shifts and acknowledged his casual employment contract didn't guarantee work. The ABC’s payroll records showed the Applicant remained a ‘casual’ employee until July 2026.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure clear communication regarding the terms of casual employment, particularly concerning shift availability and guarantees. While casual contracts don't mandate guaranteed hours, transparency about potential changes in workload is crucial to avoid misunderstandings and claims of unfair dismissal. Regularly reviewing casual employee engagement and providing opportunities for skill development can also mitigate risk.
What it means for employees
Employees should carefully review their employment contracts, especially regarding the terms of casual employment and any guarantees around work hours. If there's a significant reduction in offered shifts or changes to working conditions, it’s important to seek clarification from your employer about the reasons behind these changes and how they affect your position.
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/2026fwc2714.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 →