Seven years of service followed this casual barista to her new employer
A single missing document cost a Coffee Club franchisee its defence against an unfair dismissal claim filed by a casual barista.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on 26 February 2026 that Alicia Wright was protected from unfair dismissal — even though she had worked for her employer, Ekasher Pty Ltd, for less than four months (Wright v Ekasher Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 630).
Wright was dismissed from the Coffee Club franchise at Plenty Valley, where she had worked as a barista. She filed her unfair dismissal application on 6 October 2025. Ekasher pushed back, arguing she hadn't been on the books long enough to qualify. As a small business with 13 employees, Ekasher needed to show Wright hadn't clocked one year of continuous service.
On paper, the maths looked simple. Wright's employment with Ekasher started on 18 June 2025 — nowhere near a year. But there was a wrinkle. Before Ekasher took over the franchise, Wright had spent more than seven years working the same job, at the same location, for the previous franchisee, Yili Pty Ltd, starting on 6 April 2018.
Commissioner Tran found that a transfer of business had taken place. Ekasher had purchased the operation from Yili, picking up its plant, equipment, and trading stock. Wright was re-employed within three months, doing substantially the same work. Under the Fair Work Act, that is enough to establish a connection between the old and new employer — no written transfer agreement required.
Here is where it went wrong for Ekasher. The law gives incoming employers a way to reset the clock on a transferring employee's service. All they have to do is tell the employee in writing, before the new job starts, that their prior service will not be recognised. Ekasher never sent that notice. Wright said she never received one, and no evidence was produced to say otherwise.
Without it, Wright's years of service with Yili counted as time served with Ekasher. That put her well over the one-year minimum for small business employees — and squarely within unfair dismissal protections.
The Commission also looked at Wright's status as a casual. Rosters showed she regularly worked at least one shift a week, and often three or more, except in the weeks leading up to her dismissal. Commissioner Tran was satisfied she was a regular casual with a reasonable expectation of ongoing work.
The jurisdictional objection was dismissed, and the Commission indicated the matter would shortly be listed for a case management conference to progress the substantive unfair dismissal claim.
For HR professionals, the takeaway is sharp. Transfer of business rules kick in automatically when the criteria are met. In franchise environments — where ownership changes hands regularly and staff are often kept on informally — it is easy to assume continuity of employment is not an issue. This case is a reminder that it very much is.
One letter. That is all it would have taken. And it needed to arrive before day one.
