University fights research fellow's dismissal claim: 'The contract expired naturally'

A university found itself under fire for a research fellow’s claim before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that she was unfairly dismissed. The employer rejected her application and said her employment naturally ended with the expiration of their agreement, arguing that “fixed-term contracts” are common in the academic field.

The worker, Dr. Madelévan Dyk, filed an unfair dismissal claim against Flinders University, alleging that her termination was initiated by the university.

Dyk's association with the University goes back to 2010 when she enrolled as a student pursuing a Bachelor of Medical Science. After obtaining her degree in 2012, she completed her honors degree in 2013 and was subsequently offered a PhD in the Department of Clinical Pharmacology, which she completed in late 2018.

‘Had a reasonable expectation of continued employment’

In late 2019, Dyk received a grant from the South Australian Government and Cancer Council, administered by the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, known as the "Beat Cancer Early Career Cancer Research Fellowship" (ECR Fellowship).

According to records, this grant, totaling $80,000 per year for three years, was contingent upon Dyk securing matching funds from the university. The ECR Fellowship started in 2020 and was extended until 31 July 2023.

Throughout the duration of the ECR Fellowship and until 16 February 2023, Dyk was employed by the university under a fixed-term contract as an "Early Career Research Fellow" (ECRF contract). The purpose of the grant and matching funds was to cover her salary under the ECRF contract.

However, it's important to note that the ECRF contract was distinct from the ECR Fellowship and was not automatically extended with the extension of the fellowship.

Dyk contends that she had a reasonable expectation of continued employment beyond February 2023, as she had ongoing commitments related to student supervision, projects, and additional research grants.

Dyk said she did not resign voluntarily but was, in fact, terminated due to the decision of Professor Jonathan Craig, the Vice President and Executive Dean of the University. She argues that Craig's decision not to renew her contract constituted a dismissal.

The university, on the other hand, said that Dyk's employment ended upon the expiration of her contract's fixed term. They contend that her contract clearly outlined its terms and was a valid agreement.

The employer argued the following:

• The university employed Dyk under a maximum-term contract, starting on 17 February 2020, and ending on 16 February 2023, with the possibility of early termination under certain conditions.
• There was no guarantee, either within the contract or otherwise, of further employment once the initial contract expired.
• In alignment with the contract's stipulations, Dyk's employment naturally concluded on February 16, 2023.

The university maintained that the absence of a new contract offer does not amount to a termination initiated by the employer. Additionally, it argued that Dyk has not presented any factors to challenge the contract's validity, and therefore, her employment termination occurred due to the contract's natural expiration.

HRD previously reported about a casual academic’s unfair dismissal claim against the University of Western Australia. The university argued that he did not meet the minimum employment period due to his suspension for misconduct allegations.

‘Employment ceased due to termination of fixed-term contract’

The worker acknowledged that the ECRF contract naturally ended due to the passage of time, however, she said it was distinct from the parties' broader employment relationship.

According to the worker, the university made representations during her employment that suggested a mutual understanding of the continuation of the employment relationship beyond the specified date.

Additionally, she said the primary factor leading to the termination of this relationship was the university's decision not to renew her contract, effectively constituting a dismissal under the FW Act.

Meanwhile, the university said her "employment ceased due to the expiration of her fixed-term contract."

Was she dismissed at the employer’s initiative?

The FWC found that the worker was “aware that, for her employment to continue beyond 16 February 2023, she would need to secure further funding.”

It said the university “had good cause to place research only academics on fixed term contracts tied to funding. To not do so could result in the University being exposed to extraordinary costs outside of its control.”

“Contracts of this nature are common in the academic research field,” the Commission said. “The use of contracts of a time-limited nature is not a mere administrative convenience for the university but reflects the time-limited nature of funding available,” it added.

“The [worker] was engaged on a genuine, time-limited contract. [Her] employment was not to continue after 16 February 2023. On that date, absent any further contract of employment, the employment relationship between the [worker] and the university would come to an end due to the effluxion of time,” it said.

Thus, the FWC said that she was not dismissed at the employer’s initiative, and consequently rejected her application.