A Brisbane inspection technician told the Fair Work Commission she was dismissed in April after her hours dried up, but she had kept emailing for shifts, returned to work in May and took part in redundancy consultation in June. The Commission found she had not been dismissed at all, and threw out her general protections claim.
What the Commission decided
Huanran Zhang, who worked inspecting robotic vacuums and electric scooters for Pro Tech Distributions, argued her employment ended on 9 April 2026, the day she emailed asking why she had not been given any casual shifts for weeks. The company said no dismissal had occurred on that date at all.
Commissioner Hunt found that Ms Zhang's full-time job had already ended earlier, in March, when she failed her probation and was given a clear, written termination letter. She then asked for casual work, signed a new casual contract, and that contract did not guarantee her any minimum hours.
The gap in shifts during March and April was put down to renovations at the warehouse, not a decision to get rid of her. The Commissioner accepted that was a temporary pause in work, not a dismissal, even though it was unfortunate that the company never replied to her email asking what was going on.
What undid her case, though, was what happened next. She accepted a shift in May, injured her back doing heavy lifting that day, then kept providing medical certificates and asking about light duties, telling the company she wanted to keep working. She also applied for another job in late May while still describing herself, on her own CV, as currently employed by Pro Tech. When the company began consulting her about redundancy in June, she asked for details of how it would affect
What this means
This case also turned on her status as a casual employee with no guaranteed hours, an issue covered in more detail at casual employees and unfair dismissal.