The employer had records, just not the witnesses to back them up
A verbal "you're done" did not constitute dismissal, a Fair Work ruling has found. Three critical days determined the entire outcome.
On 21 April 2026, Deputy President Beaumont of the Fair Work Commission dismissed both jurisdictional objections raised by Mattben Pty Ltd, the employer behind transport company Freight Lines Group, in the matter of Max Casey v Mattben Pty Ltd.
It started on 2 January 2026, when Casey could not be reached during working hours. Depot Manager Marcus Dunster and driver Neil Rennie drove to Casey's last known location to conduct a wellbeing check. They found the company truck parked on the side of the road. Casey was not present. Multiple items identified as drug paraphernalia were observed throughout the cabin. Casey subsequently spoke with Managing Director Michael Harding by phone and gave an estimated arrival time of 20 minutes.
The employer's position was that Dunster told Casey that day words to the effect of "you're done clear out your truck." Casey's account was broadly similar but less conclusive. He recalled being told to clear out the truck, that it was best not to talk about it, and that Dunster would be finishing his shift that day. Casey said he sent an email to the company the following day, a Saturday, seeking clarification on his employment status. No such email was produced at the hearing.
A letter of termination, dated 5 January 2026, stated that Casey's employment had been terminated with immediate effect on 2 January 2026, citing serious misconduct. Casey received that letter on 5 January 2026.
That three-day gap proved decisive. The employer argued the dismissal occurred on 2 January 2026. This position, if accepted, would have raised two separate problems for Casey. First, it would have meant he had not completed the six-month minimum employment period under the Fair Work Act 2009. Second, it would have meant his unfair dismissal application, filed on 27 January 2026, was lodged outside the statutory 21-day window.
On the question of when Casey commenced employment, there was initially a dispute. The Respondent's Form F3 stated he was employed from 3 July 2025, while Casey's Form F2 nominated 1 July 2025. Both parties ultimately agreed, in the course of proceedings, that 3 July 2025 was the correct commencement date.
Deputy President Beaumont found in Casey's favour on both counts. The Commission applied the established principle that a dismissal cannot take legal effect before it is communicated to the employee. Because Casey received the termination letter on 5 January 2026, that date was the operative one, regardless of what the letter stated about 2 January 2026.
With a commencement date of 3 July 2025 and a dismissal date of 5 January 2026, Casey had just cleared the six-month threshold. His application was also in time. The 21st day after dismissal fell on 26 January 2026, Australia Day, a public holiday, which extended the deadline to the next business day, 27 January 2026.
Critically, the Respondent called no witnesses at the hearing, despite receiving comprehensive directions on the disputed issues. On whether Casey had been informed of his dismissal on 2 January 2026, Beaumont found "the evidence before me is, on balance, insufficient to conclude that that is the case."
The matter will now proceed to a full hearing on the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. The allegations of serious misconduct have not yet been adjudicated.
The case underlines several points for HR leaders. The legal clock on dismissal starts when the employee actually receives notice, not when the employer intends it, not when a letter is written, and not when a manager says something in the field. Verbal exchanges, however blunt, create genuine ambiguity about when termination legally occurred. And when facts are disputed at a hearing, the absence of witness evidence leaves an employer with very little ground to stand on.
