The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 21 November 2025:

Fair Work Commission|2025-11-21

Mr Jae Challis v Meta Healthcare Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3502 (21 November 2025)

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 21 November 2025:

Inserted 2024 replacing 2025 in paragraphs 11,15,17 and 26, grammatical revisions.

s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

General protections dismissal dispute - whether employee or contractor - multi-factorial test - finding of casual employment - whether employee dismissed - casual employment has not ended - jurisdictional objection upheld - application dismissed

[1] Jae Challis signed a "Contractor Agreement" with Meta Healthcare Pty Ltd (Meta) on 6 September 2023 concerning the provision of disability support worker services to Meta's clients. Mr Challis performed work for Meta's clients from 2023 until late June 2025. A dispute then arose between Mr Challis and Meta about whether Mr Challis should have been classified as an employee rather than an independent contractor. The parties maintain differing views on this issue. Mr Challis has not performed disability support services for Meta since the dispute emerged in July 2025. Mr Challis filed an application in the Commission on 15 August 2025 which alleges he was dismissed from employment with Meta on 29 July 2025 in breach of the general protections in the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). This decision concerns the messy issues of whether Mr Challis was an employee of Meta or an independent contractor and whether Mr Challis was "dismissed" within the meaning of s.386 of the FW Act. The resolution of these issues will determine whether Mr Challis is eligible to make a general protections application involving dismissal pursuant to s.365 of the FW Act.

[2] The evidence relied upon by the parties is identified in the Schedule at the end of the decision. All witnesses were cross-examined on their evidence at a hearing held via video on 24 October 2025. The transcript was then ordered and closing submissions were heard via video on 13 November 2025. I granted permission for Meta to be represented at the hearings because I was satisfied the matter is complex and granting permission would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. Mr Challis did not oppose permission being granted for Meta to be represented.

[3] The legal test for determining whether a person was an employee or independent contractor was significantly altered on 26 August 2024.[1] The FW Act was amended on 26 August 2024 to essentially override the High Court precedent established by the majority of the High Court in Personnel Contracting[2] and Jamsek.[3] This was achieved by inserting a new s.15AA into the FW Act the effect of which is to mandate consideration of the real substance, practical reality, and true nature of the relevant relationship, including by reference to how the contract was performed in practice, when determining if the person was an employee or independent contractor. The change nullifies the High Court's previous determination that how the contract was performed by the parties is largely irrelevant when the rights and duties of the parties are comprehensively recorded in a written contract. New provisions allowing individuals to opt out of the legal impact of s.15AA were also inserted in ss.15AB, 15AC, and 15AD of the FW Act.

[4] The transitional provisions[4] regarding the operation of s.15AA of the FW Act are as follows:

1. Section 15AA applies following commencement to a relationship in existence on 26 August 2024 which was entered into prior to 26 August 2024, and to relationships entered into after 26 August 2024.[5]

2. When determining an individual's length of service and period of employment under the FW Act, whether service prior to 26 August 2024 is to be counted as service as an employee is determined by reference to the High Court precedent in Personnel Contracting and Jamsek, and without reference to s.15AA of the FW Act.[6]

3. The amendments do not apply in relation to applications that were already "on foot"[7] when the amendments commenced on 26 August 2024.[8]

[5] It is therefore conceivable that Mr Challis' status as an employee or independent contractor changed when s.15AA of the FW Act commenced operating on 26 August 2024.

[6] Mr Challis now considers he was a casual employee of Meta since he commenced working in 2023 and that he has not received his full employment entitlements under the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award). That issue would likely need to be resolved for the period of 2023 to 26 August 2024 with reference to the High Court precedent in Personnel Contracting and Jamsek rather than s.15AA of the FW Act. However, the parties agree that I do not need to undertake that assessment in this case. I am only required to determine whether Mr Challis was eligible to make an application under s.365 of the FW Act when he ceased working for Meta in mid-2025. That issue can be determined solely by reference to s.15AA of the FW Act.

[7] Section 15AA of the FW Act states whether an individual is an employee to be determined by "ascertaining the real substance, practical reality, and true nature of the relationship." The "totality of the relationship" must be considered. The definition means the multi-factorial approach adopted in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[9] and Hollis v Vabu[10] must be applied.

[8] Factors that are likely to be relevant to the multi-factorial test include:

The degree of control over the work of the putative employee.
Whether the worker performs work for other businesses.
Whether the worker has a separate place of work and advertises their services to the world at large.
Whether the worker provides their own tools and equipment.
Whether the worker can delegate or subcontract the relevant work.
How the worker is compensated.
Whether the putative employer has the right to suspend or dismiss the person engaged.
Whether the worker is presented to the world as emanation of the putative employer's business.
Whether income tax is deducted from remuneration paid to the worker.
Whether the worker is provided with paid holidays or sick leave.
Whether the work involves a profession, trade, or distinct calling on the part of the person engaged.
Whether the worker creates goodwill or saleable assets in the course of their work.

• Whether the worker spends a significant portion of his remuneration on business expenses.[11]

[9] The terms and terminology of the contract are always important. However, the parties cannot alter the true nature of their relationship by putting a different label on it. The parties cannot deem the relationship between themselves to be something it is not.[12] Terms that are merely consequential upon the labelling adopted by the parties such as those directed at taxation, superannuation, and insurance coverage, can be considered but are not conclusive.[13]

[10] There is a comprehensive written document titled "Contractor Agreement" which records the terms of the relationship between Mr Challis and Meta. That document is obviously important. I will analyse the terms of the Contractor Agreement below.

[11] However, there is also an important email that Charlene Castillo (Chief Operations Officer) sent to Mr Challis on 14 October 2024.[14] That email offered Mr Challis a position as Team Leader of Support Workers. Mr Challis accepted this offer via email the following day on 15 October 2024.[15]

[12] The email from Ms Castillo relevantly states:

"I am pleased to offer you the role of Team Leader of Support Workers as a contractor with Meta Healthcare Pty Ltd, effective from 14th October 2024. This email serves as a binding agreement until a formal contract is issued shortly thereafter.

As part of this role, your compensation will be as follows:

Weekdays: $40 per hour
Saturdays: $50 per hour
Sundays/Public Holidays: $60 per hour

Team Leadership and Supervision - Leading and managing a team of support workers to ensure high-quality service delivery, providing regular guidance, and conducting performance reviews.

Client Relationship Management - Acting as the first point of contact for clients and families, ensuring services are delivered according to care plans and organisational standards.

Training and Development - Identifying training needs within the team, coordinating sessions, and ensuring compliance with professional development.

Compliance and reporting - Ensuring adherence to organisational policies and preparing regular reports on performance and satisfaction.

Collaboration and Communication - Fostering a collaborative environment and ensuring effective communication with stakeholders.

Planning Client Outings - Coordinating and planning client outings in line with care plans and ensuring all safety measures are in place.

Please note that the terms and conditions outlined in your current support worker contractor agreement, including provision for kilometres, required checks, insurances and other relevant conditions, will continue to apply until the formal agreement for your team leader role is in place.

Kindly confirm your acceptance of this offer by replying to this email. A formal contract outlining further terms and conditions will follow soon.

We are excited to have you in this leadership role and look forward to your contribution to Meta Healthcare."

[13] Mr Challis gave evidence that he never received the formal contract for the Team Leader of Support Workers position that was foreshadowed in Ms Castillo's email. Meta did not contest this evidence and has not provided a copy of any subsequent formal contract. I therefore find that a subsequent formal contract was not provided by Meta.

[14] I consider the email exchange between Ms Castillo and Mr Challis constituted a binding variation of the Contractor Agreement. Ms Castillo's email expressly refers to a "binding agreement" regarding the Team Leader of Support Workers position. I consider the communication was clearly intended to create legal relations between Meta and Mr Challis. There was consideration for both parties arising from the variation.[16] There was a clear offer, and a clear acceptance, of the variation.

[15] As a result, I find that from when Mr Challis accepted the offer for the Team Leader of Support Workers position on 15 October 2024, Mr Challis' work for Meta was regulated by the Contractor Agreement as varied by the terms set out in Ms Castillo's email dated 14 October 2024.

[16] Ms Castillo suggested in her evidence that Mr Challis may have ceased performing the Team Leader of Support Workers role in February 2025 when his availability reduced.[17] I am not satisfied that this occurred based on the lack of any documentary evidence. Further, Mr Challis was still being paid the higher Team Leader for Support Workers rates in July 2025 and was being prompted by Meta to submit invoices at the higher rates.[18]

[17] When the terms of the varied Contractor Agreement and the totality of the relationship between Mr Challis and Meta is assessed, I consider it is reasonably clear that Mr Challis was engaged as a casual employee of Meta, at least from 15 October 2024 when he accepted the Team Leader of Support Workers role.

[18] I consider the following terms of the varied Contractor Agreement weigh in favour of finding an employment relationship:

While Ms Castillo deliberately referred to Mr Challis remaining as a contractor at the beginning of the email she sent offering the Team Leader of Support Workers role, the duties required of the Team Leader of Support Workers role are largely incompatible with an independent contracting relationship. Mr Challis was required to supervise, manage, and train other Meta workers, manage relationships with Meta's clients, and ensure adherence to Meta's policies. These are leadership responsibilities within Meta's business. The responsibilities are not consistent with Mr Challis conducting his own business.

Clause 5(g) of the Contractor Agreement required Mr Challis to seek the consent of Meta to subcontract or delegate the performance of any work.

Clause 7(b) of the Contractor Agreement required Mr Challis to comply with Meta's policies and procedures.

Clause 11(b) of the Contractor Agreement prevented Mr Challis from engaging in any business or activity in competition with Meta during the agreement and for 12 months after the termination of the agreement.

Clause 18 of the Contractor Agreement allowed Meta to terminate the agreement if Mr Challis engaged in serious misconduct or wilful neglect of duties.

Clause 22 of the Contractor Agreement prevented Mr Challis from acquiring any intellectual property in relation to work performed under the agreement.

Clause 23 of the Contractor Agreement contains a restraint of trade clause that prevented Mr Challis from engaging in activity in competition with Meta for 12 months after the contract terminated.

[19] I also consider Meta exercised a substantial degree of control over the work to be performed by Mr Challis. Meta entered contractual arrangements with clients to provide certain services. Mr Challis was then required to provide the contracted services on behalf of Meta in accordance with Meta's policies and procedures. Meta was contractually required to ensure that Mr Challis provided services in accordance with what had been agreed with the client. Mr Challis' working hours had to be performed at the times specified in offers of work from Meta. Meta directed Mr Challis to perform duties that were consistent with those outlined in Ms Castillo's email about the Team Leader for Support Workers position.[19] Mr Challis was provided with instructions from Meta about the services he was required to provide and was required to record notes for Meta about what had occurred.[20] I consider the degree of control Meta had over the work that Mr Challis performed weighs in favour of an employment relationship.

[20] The evidence concerning how work was allocated to Mr Challis from Meta was not entirely clear. Meta uses a Shiftcare system and Microsoft Teams to communicate with its workers about services to be provided. There is also evidence of direct communication about availability between Mr Challis and Meta representatives. I do not consider the evidence about how work was allocated to Mr Challis to be overly persuasive because it was potentially consistent with an independent contracting arrangement or with casual employment.

[21] There is no evidence that suggests Mr Challis was conducting a disability support services business as a sole trader aside from the work he was performing for Meta. The evidence suggests the only disability support work that Mr Challis performed was for Meta. Mr Challis was not generating any goodwill for a separate business through the work he performed for Meta.

[22] The parties directed considerable attention towards the issue of whether Mr Challis was required to wear a Meta uniform when providing disability support services. The evidence suggests Mr Challis was at least required to wear Meta clothing when he attended schools and a gym, but also that there were occasions where Mr Challis performed work not wearing Meta clothing. I do not think much ultimately turns on this issue. Given the clients booked services through Meta, I consider they would have been under the impression that Mr Challis was representing Meta regardless of whether he was wearing Meta clothing. Mr Challis was a representative of Meta to the outside world when he provided disability support services.

[23] I do not consider the fact that Meta made several offers of employment to Mr Challis to be overly relevant to determining the true nature of the relationship. The main hurdle to Mr Challis accepting any of these offers appears to be that he did not want to work full-time for Meta. There is no evidence that Mr Challis was ever offered casual employment. In any event, Mr Challis was clearly aware that he was being labelled by Meta as a contractor rather than an employee, but that is not overly relevant to the multi-factorial test.

[24] There are factors that weigh in favour of an independent contracting relationship including:

The labels used by the parties in the Contractor Agreement.

Mr Challis was required to issue invoices for the performance of work.

The rates of pay in the Contractor Agreement are inclusive of GST and PAYG tax was not deducted by Meta.

Mr Challis was required to source his own insurance.

The Contractor Agreement states Mr Challis was required to manage his own superannuation contributions.

[25] However, I consider these factors generally fall into the category of being consequential to the label used by the parties in the Contractor Agreement. I consider this reduces their weight in the overall assessment.

[26] Based on the various matters I have identified above, I consider the application of the multi-factorial test to the circumstances of this case strongly supports a conclusion that Mr Challis was a casual employee of Meta, at least from when he accepted the Team Leader of Support Workers role on 15 October 2024.

[27] I find Mr Challis was a casual employee of Meta at the time of his alleged dismissal on 29 July 2025.

[28] The breakdown of the relationship between Mr Challis and Meta is captured in documentary evidence and uncontested evidence from the witnesses. The key events are:

(i) Mr Challis sent an email to Meta on 11 July 2025 which stated:

"Sorry for the short notice, the uni timetable for this semester is worse than the last unfortunately. Due to this and a few timetable change requests I won't know my schedule until closer to the start date but as it currently stands I won't be available from the 16/07/2025 until further notice, sorry for any inconvenience caused by this."[21]

(ii) Ms Castillo responded to Mr Challis' email on 15 July 2025 and stated: "Thanks for letting us know. Hope everything goes well."[22]

(iii) Mr Challis sent an email to Meta at 9:14am on 28 July 2025. Mr Challis' email alleged that he had been incorrectly classified as an independent contractor and that he may not have been paid in accordance with the SCHADS Award. Mr Challis requested a "good-faith review of my employment arrangement and associated entitlements." Mr Challis' email stated: "for transparency and clarity, I would prefer that all correspondence regarding this matter be conducted via email."

(iv) Mr Challis' access to Meta's Microsoft Teams account had been removed by 10:50am on 28 July 2025.[23]

(v) Meta responded to Mr Challis' email seemingly with a suggestion that the parties discuss a commercial resolution. The parties did not provide a copy of the relevant email.

(vi) Mr Challis sent an email to Meta at 1:44pm on 28 July 2025. Mr Challis' email contained a financial offer to resolve his matter amicably and without escalation. Mr Challis also repeated his request for all contact to be in writing.[24]

(vii) Mr Challis' access to the Shiftcare application had been removed by 29 July 2025.[25] Mr Challis claims he tried to use the application to update his shift availability on 29 July 2025.

(viii) Mr Challis sent a follow-up email to Meta at 9:43am on 4 August 2025. Mr Challis reiterated that he was open to resolving the matter amicably. Mr Challis' email stated: "For clarity, I confirm that I have not resigned from my position with Meta Healthcare. My prior statement that I could not continue working until further notice was solely related to temporary scheduling constraints arising from my university commitments. It should not be interpreted as a resignation." Mr Challis' email referred to workplace rights and indicated he may escalate the matter if the amount he was seeking is not paid. Mr Challis requested a response by close of business on 9 August 2025.[26]

(ix) Lawyers for Meta and Mr Challis exchanged correspondence on 8 August 2025, 9 August 2025, and 19 August 2025. The dispute was not resolved.

(x) Mr Challis filed a general protections application on 15 August 2025 which alleges he was dismissed on 29 July 2025. That is the date Mr Challis realised his access to the Shiftcare application had been removed, along with his access to Meta's Microsoft Teams account.

[29] The Full Bench in Wayne Shotland v The Smiths Snackfood Co Pty Ltd[27] stated the following in relation to the often-difficult task of assessing whether a casual employee has been dismissed:

"Continuous service by a casual employee who has an established sequence of engagements with an employer is broken only when the employer or the employee make it clear to the other party, by words or actions that there will be no further engagements."

[30] The Full Bench in Yuri Humeniuk v Sculpture by the Sea Incorporated[28] stated that whether there has been a termination of the employment relationship must be assessed objectively based on whether a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have understood that the employment relationship was terminated.

[31] Mr Challis initially ceased performing casual work for Meta because he indicated on 11 July 2025 that he was not available for shifts until further notice. There is no evidence that Mr Challis has subsequently confirmed his availability for further shifts. Mr Challis claims he was attempting to do this on 29 July 2025 through Shiftcare but his access had been removed. I have doubts that Mr Challis was planning to provide his updated availability through the Shiftcare application on 29 July 2025. I consider the more likely explanation is that Mr Challis was checking whether his access had been removed, given he knew he had already been removed from Meta's Microsoft Teams account. It is also clear Mr Challis regularly contacted Meta representatives directly about his availability rather than exclusively using the Shiftcare system. Mr Challis sent numerous emails to Ms Castillo confirming his availability. Mr Challis could have provided his updated availability to Ms Castillo or other Meta representatives via email at any time after 11 July 2025. There is no evidence that this occurred.

[32] I am not satisfied that Meta's decision to remove Mr Challis' access to its Microsoft Teams and Shiftcare accounts on 28 and 29 July 2025 constituted a clear communication from Meta that Mr Challis would not be offered any further engagements. Meta's conduct must be viewed in the context that Mr Challis was seemingly declining to provide any availability and was requesting to be only contacted by email. Mr Challis was not giving any indication to Meta that he intended to make himself available for further shifts and it is understandable that Meta considered there was no utility in maintaining Mr Challis' access to these accounts. Mr Challis' email to Meta representatives on 4 August 2025 also did not allege that he had been dismissed by Meta because his access to the Microsoft Teams and Shiftcare systems had been removed. Mr Challis instead sought to clarify that he had not resigned.

[33] In addition, Mr Challis's own evidence is that Meta "has never issued me a termination letter or otherwise confirmed that my engagement has ended."[29]

[34] For these reasons, I find that Mr Challis was not dismissed at the initiative of Meta within the meaning of s.386(1)(a) of the FW Act.

[35] The next issue that must be considered is whether Mr Challis resigned from his employment with Meta and, if Mr Challis did resign, whether the resignation was forced.

[36] There is no evidence that Mr Challis ever communicated to Meta that he was permanently unavailable for any further engagements. Mr Challis described his unavailability as a temporary issue in the initial email he sent to Meta representatives on 11 July 2025. Mr Challis later confirmed on 4 August 2025 that he had not resigned and referred to "temporary scheduling constraints."

[37] I am not satisfied that Mr Challis has ever communicated a legally effective resignation to Meta. I find that Mr Challis was not dismissed within the meaning of s.386(1)(b) of the FW Act.

[38] Given my findings above, Mr Challis remains a casual employee of Meta because neither party has communicated a legally effective end to the employment relationship.

[39] I have accepted Mr Challis' argument that he was a casual employee of Meta around the time of his alleged dismissal on 29 July 2025. Meta's jurisdictional objection on this point is dismissed.

[40] I am not satisfied that Mr Challis was dismissed by Meta within the meaning of s.386 of the FW Act. Meta's jurisdictional objection on this point is upheld.

[41] Mr Challis' general protections application is dismissed.

[42] I recommend that the parties meet to discuss what should occur next in relation to Mr Challis' employment. This may involve:

Mr Challis providing his availability and resuming his casual employment in accordance with the minimum conditions in the SCHADS Award.

Mr Challis formally tendering a resignation from his employment. This could trigger a dismissal under s.386(1)(b) of the FW Act if Mr Challis establishes that he was forced to resign due to the conduct of Meta.

Meta may terminate Mr Challis' employment which could trigger a dismissal under s.386(1)(a) of the FW Act.

[43] Given the latter two options will likely involve further litigation, and that Mr Challis can still potentially pursue an underpayment of wages claim in a court of competent jurisdiction, I encourage the parties to try and urgently negotiate a solution that resolves all matters between them.

Mr D Lambley from Michael Vassili Lawyers for Meta.

A1 Witness statement from Jae Challis dated 9 October 2025.

R1 Witness statement from Peter Fauvette (Director and Co-Owner) dated 25 September 2025.

R2 Further witness statement from Mr P Fauvette dated 20 October 2025.

R3 Witness statement from Charlene Castillo (Chief Operating Officer) dated 25 September 2025.

R4 Further witness statement from Ms Castillo dated 20 October 2025.

R5 Witness statement from Tristain Fauvette (Chief Marketing Office and Co-Owner) dated 26 September 2025.

R6 Further witness statement from Mr T Fauvette dated 20 October 2025.

R7 Witness statement from Tenelle Rodgers (Regional Coordinator) dated 25 September 2025.

R8 Witness statement from Carla Duval (Rostering Coordinator) dated 20 October 2025.

R9 Witness statement from Mikaele Tuimavave (Team Leader) dated 25 September 2025.

[1] The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 amends the definition of "employee" under the FW Act. The new definition in s.15AA will expressly require consideration of how the contract is performed in practice. That in broad terms overrules the current High Court precedent on the issue.

[2] Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd (2022) 96 ALJR 89; [2022] HCA 1.

[3] ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek (2022) 96 ALJR 144; [2022] HCA 2.

[5] Amending Act, Schedule 1, Part 18, clause 116.

[6] Amending Act, Schedule 1, Part 18, clause 118.

[7] Which is defined broadly in the Amending Act, Schedule 1, Part 18, clause 119.

[8] Amending Act, Schedule 1, Part 18, clause 119.

[11] Jiang Shen Cai v Do Rozario [2011] FWAFB 8307 at [30](4).

[13] ACE Insurance Ltd v Trifunovski (2013) 235 IR 122 Buchanan J at [37].

[14] Exhibit A1, Annexure N, DHB page 44 and Exhibit R3, Annexure F, DHB page 343.

[15] Exhibit A1, Annexure N, DHB page 44 and Exhibit R3, Annexure F, DHB page 343.

[17] Exhibit R3 at [21] and Exhibit R4 at [33].

[18] Exhibit R3, Annexure D, DHB page 297 and 298 and Exhibit A1, Annexure AN, DHB page 69.

[19] Exhibit A1, Annexure A1, DHB page 64 and Exhibit A1, Annexure O, DHB page 45.

[20] Exhibit A, Annexure J and K, CHB page 40 and 41.

[21] Exhibit A1, Annexure S, DHB page 49.

[22] Exhibit R3, Annexure E, CHB page 181.

[23] Exhibit A1 at [27] and Exhibit A4 at [38].

[24] Exhibit A1, Annexure AA, DHB page 56.

[25] Exhibit A1 at [29] and Exhibit R4 at [38].

[26] Exhibit A1, Annexure AC, DHB page 58.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_act/fwlaln2a2024513/index.html) [2) Act 2024

Mr Jae Challis v Meta Healthcare Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3502

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (133 paragraphs)

Mr Jae Challis v Meta Healthcare Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3502 (21 November 2025)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (9)