s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

• [1] On 14 May 2025, Mr Peter Diing Arok Deu Yuot (the Applicant) filed a general protections application involving dismissal (the Application) to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission), alleging that he was dismissed by Talice Security Services Pty Ltd (the Respondent) in contravention of Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act).

• [2] In its Form F8A - Response to a general protections application involving dismissal, the Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection to the application on the grounds that the Applicant was not dismissed within the meaning of s.386 of the FW Act.

• [3] Section 386 of the FW Act provides the meaning of 'dismissed' as follows:

(a) the person's employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer's initiative; or

(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.

(a) the person was employed under a contract of employment for a specified period of time, for a specified task, or for the duration of a specified season, and the employment has terminated at the end of the period, on completion of the task, or at the end of the season; or

(ii) whose employment was for a specified period of time or was, for any reason, limited to the duration of the training arrangement;

and the employment has terminated at the end of the training arrangement; or

(i) the demotion does not involve a significant reduction in his or her remuneration or duties; and

(ii) he or she remains employed with the employer that effected the demotion.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person employed under a contract of a kind referred to in paragraph (2)(a) if a substantial purpose of the employment of the person under a contract of that kind is, or was at the time of the person's employment, to avoid the employer's obligations under this Part."

• [4] The Respondent claimed in its Form F8A response that the Applicant remained employed on a casual basis, however, after a prolonged period of unavailability, they had no active work assignments that fit the Applicant's circumstances.

• [5] The Applicant maintained that he had been 'dismissed' by the Respondent.

• [6] An initial Telephone Conference/Directions was conducted in this matter on 3 July 2025, at which the parties reached an in-principle agreement to resolve the matter on the basis that the Applicant would 'return to work'.

• [7] However, the Applicant advised my Chambers following that conference that the Respondent had failed to comply with the agreement and had not offered him the agreed shifts.

• [8] I therefore conducted a further Telephone Conference/Directions on 8 July 2025. At that Conference, on the basis that the parties had been unable to reach a finalised settlement of the matter, the Applicant advised that he wished to proceed to a determination of the jurisdictional objection.

• [9] Directions were issued to the parties on 8 July 2025, requiring filing of materials in relation to the jurisdictional objection. By consent of the parties, it was advised that the jurisdictional issue would be determined on the papers.

• [10] In Coles Supply Chain v Milford,[1] the Full Court of the Federal Court stated:

"To summarise, when an application is purportedly lodged under s 365 it is open to a respondent to assert that there has been no dismissal, so giving rise to a dispute on that question. Such a dispute falls to be determined not under s 368 but under s 365 itself. It is an antecedent dispute going to the entitlement of the applicant to apply. It is also open to a respondent to admit that a dismissal has occurred but dispute that the dismissal took effect within 21 days of the date that the application was filed. Such a dispute may give rise to an issue under s 366(1), involving as it does a question as to whether it is necessary for the FWC to determine whether more time should be "allowed" for the application to be made under s 365. That too is an antecedent dispute, going to the question of whether an application has been made. It is a dispute that must be resolved before the powers conferred by s 368 can be exercised at all."[2]

• [11] As a result of this decision of the Full Court, I am obligated to make findings of fact in determining whether the Applicant has been dismissed before any Certificate can be issued under s.368 of the FW Act.

• [12] This decision determines the jurisdictional issue of whether the Applicant was 'dismissed' for the purposes of his s.365 application.

• [13] The Respondent submitted that the Applicant remains employed under a casual employment contract and has at no time been terminated. The Respondent submitted that site-specific removals or reduction in rostered shifts were driven by client requests, compliance issues, or voluntary unavailability of the Applicant.

• [14] The Respondent relied on the following set of 'key facts':

"1. The Applicant was employed as a casual security guard from 14 May 2024 and acknowledged there was no guarantee of regular hours.

2. Following complaints from Auto Sparky and Target, the Applicant was removed from those rosters but continued to receive shifts across November-December 2024.

3. The Applicant voluntarily applied for extended leave from 6 January to 17 April 2025.

4. On 27 March 2025, a Child Safety Prohibition Notice was issued under SA legislation, legally barring him from working with children - this directly affected his eligibility for most client sites.

5. He was never formally dismissed; rather, his rostering profile was temporarily archived due to long period of unavailability.

6. On 3 July 2025, during a scheduled conference call, it was confirmed that the Applicant was not dismissed. His Deputy profile was reactivated, and he collected his uniform.

7. As of this writing, the Applicant is active on Talice's casual roster and has been accepting and working shifts that align with his current licensing."

• [15] The Respondent submitted that the Applicant signed a 'casual employment agreement' on 15 May 2024. The Respondent submitted that, during the recruitment process and within the employment agreement signed by the Applicant, the Applicant was clearly advised that:

"• Casual employment does not guarantee a minimum number or regularity of shifts; By accepting casual employment, employee accept that we are offering you no firm advance commitment to ongoing work with an agreed pattern of work.

• Work allocation is based on ad hoc client demand;

• Deployment to sites may be subject to client requirements and conditions

• Carry out all lawful and reasonable instructions given to you in relation to your employment

• Qualifications: Due to the nature of the position employees are required to hold a current:

It is the employee's responsibility to maintain current qualifications required for the position. Employment is subject to and conditional upon you holding these licences / qualifications."

• [16] The Respondent submitted that it provides security services on a site-by-site basis. The Respondent submitted that client demand, rostering needs, and client-specific requests directly impact available shifts for any casual employee.

• [17] The Respondent submitted that on 15 November 2024, it received a client complaint regarding the Applicant's conduct at Auto Sparky.

• [18] The Respondent submitted that the Applicant was immediately invited to a meeting to discuss the allegations and was given the opportunity to respond in writing, which he did on 16 November 2024.

• [19] The Respondent submitted that, pending further feedback from the client, the meeting was delayed; however, the Applicant continued to receive work during this period. The Respondent noted that, despite the complaint, the Applicant was rostered for the following hours:

• 18-24 November 2024: 61 hours 34 minutes
• 25 November-1 December 2024: 44 hours
• 2-8 December 2024: 50 hours
• 16-22 December 2024: 59 hours"

• [20] The Respondent submitted that this demonstrates it did not suspend or terminate the Applicant and continued to offer him available shifts.

• [21] The Respondent submitted that in December 2024, Target Alice Springs raised serious complaints regarding inappropriate comments allegedly made by the Applicant to female staff members, including minors. It submitted that on 20 December 2024, Target formally requested the Applicant's removal from their site to protect their staff.

• [22] The Respondent submitted that it notified the Applicant of the allegations on 8 January 2025 and invited him to a disciplinary meeting to provide his response.

• [23] The Respondent submitted that after considering the Applicant's response, it issued a First Written Warning on 28 January 2025 confirming that:

• He was reminded of professional conduct expectations;

• Further misconduct could result in termination."

• [24] The Respondent submitted that removal of the Applicant from Target's roster was client-driven and did not constitute termination of the Applicant's casual employment with the Respondent.

• [25] The Respondent submitted that on 23 January 2025, prior to the disciplinary outcome, the Applicant voluntarily requested unavailability from 28 January to 18 May 2025, which was approved by the Respondent.

• [26] The Respondent submitted that on 13 March 2025, its HR team advised the Applicant that his 'Deputy' rostering profile would be temporarily suspended due to his leave exceeding three months. The Respondent submitted that this is a standard administrative procedure and did not amount to termination of the Applicant's casual employment with the Respondent.

• [27] The Respondent submitted that on 24 March 2025, during the Applicant's leave period, it received a Child Safety Prohibition Notice issued under section 41(1)(a) of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 (SA), prohibiting the Applicant from working with children. The Respondent submitted that this restriction significantly affected the Applicant's ability to be deployed to sites requiring this clearance.

• [28] The Respondent submitted that the Applicant informed the Respondent on 20 April 2025 that he had returned to Alice Springs and was available for shifts.

• [29] The Respondent submitted that on 25 April 2025, Talice reminded the Applicant that:

"• Casual guards returning after extended absence must reconfirm qualifications and clearances;

• Many available shifts required valid clearances, which he currently could not hold;

• Talice was open to redeploying the Applicant to sites that do not require a valid Working With Children (Ochre) Card. However, as of the time of his return from extended leave, no suitable or available shifts existed at such non-restricted sites.

• The Applicant was advised that he remains on the casual roster and that any future shifts matching his qualifications and license status will be offered to him in line with our casual engagement process."

• [30] The Respondent submitted that, "[t]o avoid misunderstanding, the request for the Applicant to return his uniform was not intended as a dismissal". Rather, the Respondent submitted that the request reflected operational frustration and was issued in line with standard procedure for employees returning from extended unavailability.

• [31] The Respondent reiterated that this request did not imply termination or severance of the Applicant's casual employment with the Respondent.

• [32] The Respondent submitted that it has at no time terminated the Applicant's employment.

• [33] The Respondent maintained that any reduction in the Applicant's shifts resulted from:

• Legal clearance restrictions affecting site eligibility;

• Ad hoc nature of casual work, which never guaranteed hours."

• [34] The Respondent maintained that the Applicant has remained on the Respondent's 'casual register' and was eligible for redeployment to other sites.

• [35] For the reasons outlined above, the Respondent submitted that:

• He remained a casual employee, subject to work availability and compliance requirements;

• The jurisdictional objection should therefore be upheld and the application dismissed for lack of dismissal within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009."

• [36] The Applicant filed his submissions across a series of email correspondences, which are relevantly summarised as follows. The Applicant also sought to rely on his application filed in this matter and his earlier correspondences on the file.

• [37] In response to client complaints raised by the Respondent, the Applicant submitted as follows:

"• We worked very well till Auto Sparky accused me falsely... You still calls [sic] it a misconduct when there is no evidence provided!? Stop intimidating me please.

• I didn't commit any crime at Targets. Targets got CCTVs just like Auto Sparky. If you feel that I made any form of serious misconduct then we can take that forward as well... I never initiated any communication there. I didn't act inappropriately, too."

• [38] The Applicant submitted that the Respondent had taken adverse action against him because he had sought to enforce his workplace rights before the Commission.

• [39] The Applicant submitted that the Respondent issued him with a warning letter while he was overseas. The Applicant submitted that he did not sign the warning letter on his return as it "had no basis rather than intimidations and intentions to terminate my job because you hate people that seek (know) their legal rights".

• [40] The Applicant acknowledged that guards are sometimes moved from one place to another due to client complaints, however, the Applicant submitted that some of those complaints are not genuine as would be evident if they were "investigated competently".

• [41] As to the Respondent's claim that the Applicant had applied for extended leave on 23 January 2025, the Applicant submitted that he did not apply for leave on that date as he "was overseas then".

• [42] Whilst the Respondent has filed and relied on a copy of the Applicant's Contract of Casual Employment, dated 14 May 2024, the Applicant submitted that the "Casual Employment Conditions arose due to my FWC application in Dec 2024 after the Probation period".

• [43] As to his 'Working with Children' qualification, the Applicant submitted that:

"My Working with Children application is still being done in Qld. We did the last interview in late June 2025. They do not agree with what was done by DHS, SA. I wrote to DHS and they said; they will review the application after the decision is made in Qld. I got those evidences."

• [44] The Applicant submitted that he only had a 'Negative Notice' in February 2017 due to a case with his ex-wife in Queensland. The Applicant submitted that he had forgotten to apply to remove it after 2 years had passed. The Applicant submitted that he never committed a crime involving children and should not be discriminated against on this basis. The Applicant noted that he had completed many jobs in Queensland since 2017, including: shopping centres, hotels, pubs etc where children are present. The Applicant also asked in relation to the Respondent's allocation of work to him:

"Why do you let me work in Epilogue Lounge and Newland Park when you know that the children go there?"

• [45] The Applicant submitted that security work is mostly 'unregulated', and there are no records of taking people's Working with Children Cards, including those guards who work in the hospitals or clinics. The Applicant submitted that he meets the Security Licence Screenings and is legally licensed in Queensland and the Northern Territory.

• [46] The Applicant submitted that since his return from Africa, from about 19 April 2025, he has made calls to the Respondent, however, the Respondent was not interested in allocating him to a job. The Applicant argued that there were many jobs available. The Applicant submitted that he spoke with a staff member named 'Ana' on 24 April 2025, who advised that there were no shifts for him but did not elaborate further. The Applicant submitted that he was asked to return his uniforms to the Respondent on 25 April 2025.

• [47] The Applicant denied that the Respondent had advised him he was still "employed and would get some shifts". The Applicant submitted that he had not called the Respondent for shifts from 24 April 2025 as he had been told by the Respondent that he "had no job". Further, the Applicant questioned why the Respondent asked him to return his uniforms 'immediately', when they knew there were still jobs that he could do.

• [48] Despite submitting that he had been told he "had no job", the Applicant also submitted that, in his view, the Respondent "did not want to formally dismiss him" for fear he would take the matter to the Commission. The Applicant submitted that he was forced to wait for the Respondent's "mercy" and was not afforded a fair and due process.

• [49] The Applicant was of the view that the Respondent intended to frustrate him until he left of his own accord. The Applicant submitted that this was why the Respondent removed him from the 'Deputy' platform - to push him out, and so that he did not have access to "any information".

• [50] The Applicant also submitted that there is "nothing called Casual register", as referenced by the Respondent. The Applicant submitted that everything is done through the 'Deputy' app, and that if an employee is not on the Deputy app, they cannot be allocated shifts. The Applicant submitted that he now has a "restricted Deputy" and can receive shifts.

• [51] The Applicant submitted that he was only returned to work by the Respondent on 5 July 2025 in light of this matter being progressed before the Commission. However, the Applicant submitted that despite him being back on the 'Deputy' app, his hours were not sufficient and there was a lot of work that the Respondent could provide him but refused to allocate to him. He submitted that he had only been allocated 21 hours of work for August 2025.

• [52] The Applicant maintained that he is competent and available for work with the Respondent.

• [53] The Applicant submitted that the actions of the Respondent on 24 April 2025 amounted to a dismissal by the Respondent, which took effect on 25 April 2025 when he was required to return his uniforms. The Applicant submitted that he was discriminated against by the Respondent.

• [54] The Applicant also noted that he wants his wages to be evaluated by the Fair Work Ombudsman. However, I note that this is not a matter for the Commission and has no bearing on the current proceeding.

• [55] The Respondent maintained its objection on the grounds that the Applicant was not dismissed within the meaning of s.386(1) of the FW Act.

• [56] The Respondent maintained that the Applicant remains employed and on the active 'casual roster'. The Respondent maintained that whilst client site restrictions and compliance issues affected the number and location of available shifts, the Respondent at no time terminated the Applicant's employment or forced the Applicant to resign.

• [57] The Respondent addressed specific matters raised in the Applicant's submissions as follows.

• [58] The Respondent submitted that it worked cooperatively with Auto Sparky to address the concerns raised. The Respondent submitted that Auto Sparky's decision to remove the Applicant from the site was not challenged by the Respondent, and the Applicant was immediately redeployed to other sites where he worked more hours than he had previously been allocated.

• [59] The Respondent submitted that it cannot compel a client to reinstate a security guard if the client has requested their removal or declined mediation for lifting a ban. The Respondent submitted that site assignments are at the discretion of the client and managed by contractual and operational considerations.

• [60] The Respondent submitted that Target formally requested the Applicant's removal from their site following multiple concerns raised by staff, including allegations of inappropriate and unprofessional comments made toward female employees, some of whom were minors. The Respondent submitted that these concerns were treated seriously due to the nature of the workplace and the vulnerable persons involved.

• [61] The Respondent submitted that it issued a First Written Warning on 28 January 2025 after providing the Applicant with the opportunity to respond to the allegations during a disciplinary process. The Respondent noted that the Applicant disputed the claims via email response, and the Respondent considered his responses to the allegations and reports provided by the client, before taking action against the Applicant to protect the workplace environment.

• [62] The Respondent submitted that it acted in accordance with its disciplinary procedures and the client's formal request to withdraw the Applicant from the site.

• [63] The Respondent submitted that, as with all client-facing roles, it is obligated to prioritise the safety, comfort, and operational requirements of its clients.

• [64] The Respondent submitted that allegations made by the Applicant regarding unrelated employees or assignments are not relevant to the jurisdictional question. Further, it submitted that it is not aware of any formal allegations involving these individuals that relate to this matter.

• [65] The Respondent strongly denied any discriminatory conduct being taken against the Applicant. The Respondent submitted that it employs staff from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, including many members of the South Sudanese community. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant was not singled out; he was treated in accordance with the same rostering and compliance policies that apply to all casual staff.

Working With Children Clearance / Negative Notice

• [66] The Respondent submitted that it did not initiate the Applicant's Working With Children Clearance application. The Respondent submitted that the prohibition notice was issued by the Department of Human Services (SA), not by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted that it received official notice that the Applicant was legally prohibited from working with children, which affected his eligibility for most client sites.

• [67] The Respondent submitted that the sites to which the Applicant was assigned shifts after returning from leave, being Epilogue Lounge and Newland Park Road, were initially considered suitable. However, the Respondent submitted that it was later clarified that Newland Park also required a Working With Children Clearance, accordingly, the Applicant was removed from that site once this was identified.

• [68] The Respondent maintained that it did not dismiss the Applicant.

• [69] The Respondent submitted that when the Applicant returned in April 2025, he was advised that due to his ongoing prohibition, he could not be rostered to most sites. The Respondent submitted that the "uniform return" was not intended as a dismissal, rather, it reflected operational frustration as the Applicant continued to request shifts despite being advised that sites were already filled in when he came back from overseas trip. The Respondent submitted that it had confirmed to the Applicant he would contacted if any suitable shifts became available.

• [70] The Respondent submitted that on 3 July 2025, during the first Conference call in this matter, it had reiterated to the Applicant that he has not been dismissed. The Respondent submitted that following the Conference, the Applicant's 'Deputy' profile was reactivated and he resumed working shifts starting 5 July 2025.

• [71] The Respondent submitted that the Applicant is currently active in its casual pool, and since July 2025, he has been offered and has worked several shifts at Epilogue Lounge and Newland Park Road. These include:

• 11 July 2025 - Epilogue Lounge (4 hrs)
• 12 July 2025 - Newland Park (4 hrs) + Epilogue Lounge (4 hrs)
• 16 July 2025 - Epilogue Lounge (5.42 hrs)
• 17 July 2025 - Epilogue Lounge (4.33 hrs)
• 18 July 2025 - Epilogue Lounge (9.67 hrs)
• 19 July 2025 - Newland Park (4 hrs) + Epilogue Lounge (8.5 hrs)
• 23 July 2025 - Epilogue Lounge (4.78 hrs)
• 24 July 2025 - Epilogue Lounge (4.33 hrs)
• 25 July 2025 - Epilogue Lounge (8.22 hrs)
• 26 July 2025 - Newland Park (4 hrs) + Epilogue Lounge (9.18 hrs)
• 2 August 2025 - Epilogue Lounge (4.5 hrs)"

• [72] At the time of filing its submissions, the Respondent noted that the Applicant had the following shifts scheduled at Epilogue Lounge:

• 22 August 2025 - 9:00PM to 2:15AM
• 23 August 2025 - 9:30PM to 2:15AM
• 30 August 2025 - 9:30PM to 2:15AM
• 6 September 2025 - 9:30PM to 2:15AM"

• [73] The Respondent submitted that the Applicant continues to receive shifts subject to availability and compliance.

• [74] The Respondent noted that the Applicant cancelled his scheduled shift for 9 August 2025 after informing the control room via text that he was "not available on the weekend." The Respondent submitted that it made multiple attempts to contact him for clarification, but the calls to the Applicant were unanswered.

• [75] The Respondent submitted that it is committed to providing fair and lawful employment to all staff. The Respondent submitted that it is transparent with its casual workforce that there is no guarantee of fixed hours; shifts are allocated based on client needs, employee compliance, and site availability.

Comment on Applicant's Statement Regarding Deputy Access and Casual Register

• [76] Whilst the Applicant has claimed there is "no such thing as a casual register" and that 'Deputy' access solely governs shift eligibility, the Respondent clarified that the term "casual register" refers to its internal roster pool of eligible and active casual employees maintained by the company. The Respondent submitted that 'Deputy' is used as a rostering tool to allocate shifts to employees who are actively compliant. The Respondent submitted that whilst a guard may not be assigned shifts unless on 'Deputy', reinstating 'Deputy' access is contingent on standard business process and operational needs.

• [77] The Respondent submitted that the Applicant was reinstated on 'Deputy' after the 3 July 2025 conference, confirming that he remained employed and eligible for deployment but not at the sites the requires Working with Children qualifications.

• [78] The Respondent maintained that the Applicant was not dismissed; he was hired as a casual guard, and like all casuals, was never guaranteed set hours.

"• At no point was [the Applicant] terminated or told he couldn't work again;

• His employment remains active and casual in nature;

• Any limitation in shifts offered has been due to client requirements and legal compliance matters, not employer action;

• Talice remains open and willing to offer him shifts as they become available."

• [80] The Respondent submitted that the Application should be dismissed.

• [81] I have taken into account all of the submissions and evidence that have been provided by the parties. The fact that an issue is not mentioned in this decision does not mean that it has not been taken into account.

• [82] It is not in dispute that the Applicant was a casual employee. The Respondent filed a copy of the Applicant's Contract of Employment dated 14 May 2024, which was signed by the Applicant on 15 May 2024 and contains the following provisions:

By accepting casual employment, you accept that we are offering you no firm advance commitment to ongoing work with an agreed pattern of work..."

• [83] I have taken into account Schedule A to the Applicant's Contract of Employment, which provides:

"We will offer you work from time to time and in accordance with the operational needs of the business.

We make or give no guarantee as to the number or regularity of hours.

By accepting casual employment, you accept that we are offering you no firm advance commitment to ongoing work with an agreed pattern of work."

"$32.49 (inclusive of 25% casual loading) less tax and excluding superannuation.

As a casual you are paid a 25% loading as compensation for annual leave, personal/carer's leave, community service leave, notice of termination and redundancy benefits, public holidays not worked and any other entitlements that do not apply to casual employees.

You agree that the 25% casual loading you receive may be set off against any arising statutory benefits that do not apply to a casual employee including (without limitation) annual leave, personal/carer's leave, community service leave, notice of termination and redundancy benefits, and public holidays not worked."

• [84] In the Full Bench decision of City of Sydney RSL v Mrs Roxana Balgowan,[3] the Full Bench adopted, with one modification (not relevant to the present matter), the observations of Gooley DP in Andrew Kim v ORC International Pty Ltd,[4] in which the Deputy President Gooley said:

"It is difficult to see how this common law concept of repudiation has any work to do in relation to casual employees. At common law a casual employee's contract of employment ceases at the end of each engagement. An employer of a casual employee does not repudiate that contract when it fails to offer another shift."

• [85] In Moutevelidis v ICC Sydney Pty Ltd,[5] Deputy President Roberts also observed that:

"...The Applicant was a casual employee. The Agreement that governed her employment expressly provided that she was employed by the hour with no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work. Her contract of employment said that there was no guarantee of ongoing employment as the Applicant would only be required to work in accordance with the company's operational requirements. Each engagement was separate and the employment would come to an end at the conclusion of each engagement."

• [86] I have taken the above case authorities into account.

• [87] The Respondent has continued to offer the Applicant shifts throughout July and August 2025 - which I have assumed is an ongoing practice. The Applicant may argue that the number of hours/shifts per week being offered by the Respondent are less than what he previously worked, but that is simply the nature of casual employment. There are simply no guarantees of minimum hours for any casual employee in any industry in Australia. I have taken this into account.

• [88] Further, the ability of the Applicant to work across all sites for the Respondent has been limited by the behaviour of the Applicant. The Respondent cannot direct any client to accept the Applicant as a security guard if he has been removed from the site previously. Also, if the Applicant does not hold the necessary credentials to work at a site, such as a Working With Children Clearance, then the Respondent cannot roster the Applicant to work at that site. I have taken this into account.

• [89] There is nothing discriminatory about the Respondent's actions in not rostering the Applicant to perform shifts for clients where he does not possess the necessary accreditation or for clients where he is not welcome to return. This is not adverse action on behalf of the Respondent, but simply appropriate managerial practices.

• [90] The Applicant signed a contract to say that he was a casual employee, and he continues to work as a casual employee. Based on the undisputed common law principle that a casual employee's employment ceases at the conclusion of each shift, and the provisions of the Applicant's contract of employment, I am satisfied and find that the Applicant was not dismissed by the Respondent and therefore has no capacity to bring his general protections application involving dismissal application.

• [91] The jurisdictional objection by the Respondent is upheld.

• [92] The general protections application made by the Applicant is dismissed.

[1] [2020] FCAFC 152.

[3] [2018] FWCFB 5.

[4] [2016] FWC 1029.

[5] [2024] FWC 343.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer