A sessional lecturer at a Brisbane university campus argued she was not dismissed until she received a separation certificate in May 2026, but the Fair Work Commission found her employment had actually ended months earlier, when her last teaching contract expired. Because she lodged her unfair dismissal application too late, and could not show the kind of unusual circumstances needed for extra time, her case was dismissed.
What the Commission decided
Kiran Kaur had taught information technology subjects for Russo Higher Education Pty Ltd, which runs a university campus under licence, across eight consecutive sessional contracts stretching back to 2023. Her final contract covered the last teaching period of 2025 and finished on 20 December 2025.
She argued she was not actually dismissed until 4 May 2026, when she received a separation certificate and certificate of service recording a later finishing date. She said nobody had clearly told her beforehand that her employment had ended, and that the university's ongoing emails about possible future teaching work created an impression her job was still alive.
Commissioner Spencer rejected this version of events. The decision found the university had told Ms Kaur in plain terms, in emails sent in December 2025, that there were no teaching units left for her to take in the next trimester. Although staff continued to reply politely to her repeated requests for work over the following months, the Commission found none of those replies amounted to a promise of continuing employment.
The decision also dealt with an argument that laws restricting fixed term contracts meant the December 2025 end date should not count. The Commission accepted the university's position that an exemption for the higher education sector, which applied to contracts entered before a cutoff date in November 2025, covered Ms Kaur's final contract.
Having found her employment ended in December 2025, the Commission then had to decide whether to allow her extra time to lodge her claim given it was filed well afterwards. Weighing the reasons for the delay, when she actually learned of the dismissal, any steps she took to challenge it, possible unfairness to the university, and the merits of her case, the Commission found against her on nearly every point. It noted she had gone more than four months without any teaching work before lodging her application, despite having been clearly told in December 2025 that none would be offered.
What was actually in dispute
The real fight in this case was over when the clock started ticking, not whether Ms Kaur had been treated unfairly in some broader sense. Her case rested on the idea that an employer's ongoing, courteous responses to her requests for work kept the employment relationship alive, so that the real end of her job only came when the paperwork caught up with it in May 2026.
The Commission took a different view, finding a clear difference between an employer keeping someone's details on file for future opportunities and an employer promising continued work. The decision held that administrative separation certificates issued later for tax purposes, even where they recorded an incorrect date due to a payroll error, could not be used to shift the actual date employment ended.
What this means
This decision turned on the Commission's approach to the strict time limits that apply to unfair dismissal applications, and how those limits are assessed when a worker says they were confused about when their job actually finished. It also touched on when fixed term contract protections apply to the higher education sector, an issue that depended on exactly when the relevant contract was signed. Workers on a series of short contracts, including casual employees, should be aware that an employer's polite ongoing correspondence about possible future work will not necessarily extend the life of their employment for legal purposes.