FWC looks at whether it was dismissal or end of fixed-term contract
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who filed an application claiming that he was dismissed by his employer on February 4, 2024.
The employer raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the worker was not dismissed but rather that his employment ended due to the expiration of his fixed-term contract.
In this case, the FWC had to determine whether the worker's employment was terminated at the initiative of the employer or if it simply came to an end due to the expiry of the agreed-upon term in the employment contract.
The worker's arguments
The worker submitted that his employment was not brought to an end merely by the effluxion of time but was terminated at the initiative of the employer.
He argued that the wording in his contract, which stated, "Your employment will continue until terminated in accordance with the terms of the [enterprise agreement]," could be interpreted in two ways:
1. The contract would end on the specified date, but the employment relationship would continue until terminated pursuant to the agreement.
2. The contract was an outer limit contract that would continue until either the specified date or termination in accordance with the agreement.
The worker also highlighted an email from the employer's HR advisor, which referred to his departure as a "termination," further supporting his claim that he was dismissed.
The employer’s defence
On the other hand, the employer argued that the employment relationship simply came to an end due to the expiry of the term in the employment contract.
They argued that it was necessary to determine what the employer did to initiate the termination of the employment relationship and whether the expiry of the contract term or the employer's actions were the principal motivating factor for the end of the relationship.
The employer submitted that the term provision in the contract did not contain any ambiguity but rather an "ambulatory expression of a maximum-term contract."
They also challenged the relevance and significance of the alleged representations made by the worker.
The FWC’s consideration
The FWC took into account an email from the general manager to the worker, which stated: "We are committed to your growth and development, and I would like to thank you for your hard work."
The FWC was satisfied that the worker was entitled to believe that his employment would be ongoing based on this email and that the employer also believed the same.
The Commission also noted the email from the employer's HR advisor, which referred to the worker's departure as a "termination":
"Could you please return the ID access card and uniforms at your earliest convenience so we are able to process your termination and final pays this week?"
The FWC pointed out that an employee on a fixed-term or outer limit contract ceases to be employed when their contract expires due to the effluxion of time; they are not terminated.
Was the worker dismissed?
After carefully considering the evidence and the terms of the worker's final letter of offer, the FWC concluded:
"I am satisfied and find that both the [worker] and the [employer] believed that the [worker's] employment was on-going based on the [employer's] email on 22 December 2023,” the FWC said.
“I do not accept that the [employer's] general manager would provide the [worker] with his 'full support' to continue to 'grow and develop' if it was the [employer's] understanding that the [worker's] employment would cease in 6 weeks."
The Commission also noted:
"There is no indication in the contract that the [worker's] employment would cease on the 4th of February 2024 due to the effluxion of time."
Ultimately, the FWC was satisfied and found that the worker was actually dismissed by the employer on February 4, 2024 and not due to the contract’s alleged term.
