Chris Buntine v Team Global Express Pty Ltd &Toll Personnel Pty Limited

[2025] FWC 688

[2025] FWC 688

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Chris Buntine
v

Team Global Express Pty Ltd &Toll Personnel Pty Limited

(C2024/7622)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL MELBOURNE, 7 MARCH 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – jurisdictional objections – objections upheld – application dismissed.

1. Mr Chris Buntine (the Applicant) made a general protections application involving dismissal under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). Mr Buntine’s grievance is that he was dismissed from his position working at the Team Global Express site at Braeside, was stood down for 5 weeks without pay, and was then not allowed to return to the Braeside site. He claims that being removed from the Braeside site was discriminatory and done for unlawful reasons, and that he was treated differently to another person involved in the incident that led to Mr Buntine being stood down. Mr Buntine also claims that he had been subjected to bullying by a site supervisor.

1. Mr Buntine names two respondents in his application: Team Global Express (TGE) and Toll Personnel Pty Ltd (Toll).  Both respondents have raised jurisdictional objections to the application. Toll agrees that Mr Buntine was their employee but claims that it did not dismiss him.  TGE claims that it never employed Mr Buntine, rather that he was placed on assignment with TGE at Braeside by Toll.  I am required to decide these issues before there can be any consideration of the substance of Mr Buntine’s grievance concerning the circumstances culminating in his removal from the Braeside site.  In other words, this decision deals only with the jurisdictional objections raised by TGE and Toll. 

1. Ultimately at the hearing on 3 March 2025, there was no factual dispute between the parties on the threshold jurisdictional questions. In his evidence, Mr Buntine agreed that he was employed by Toll and placed on assignment with TGE at Braeside.  Mr Buntine further agreed that after his assignment with TGE Braeside was terminated, he was offered and accepted other assignments by Toll. This is consistent with the evidence produced by Toll that on the same day Mr Buntine was told that his assignment at Braeside was terminated, he was offered and accepted an assignment at TGE Road Express in Dandenong South. Toll also produced pay records showing that Mr Buntine continued to work for Toll until at least 18 November 2024.

1. The written contract of employment Mr Buntine agreed to makes it clear that his employment was on a casual basis, that Toll does not control the length of any assignment and provided no guarantee of the duration of any work or assignment, and that there was no expectation or guarantee of assignments.

1. The ending of an assignment in these circumstances is very different to the termination of an employee’s employment. I find that Toll did not dismiss Mr Buntine from his employment on 2 October 2024 as claimed. 

1. In relation to TGE, Mr Buntine correctly acknowledged that his employment was with Toll and not TGE.  As TGE was not Mr Buntine’s employer, it cannot and did not dismiss him.

1. As a result of these findings, I must uphold the jurisdictional objections of both respondents and dismiss Mr Buntine’s application. As Mr Buntine was not dismissed by either respondent, the application is not within jurisdiction and must be dismissed. An order to this effect will be issued separately.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

C. Buntine, the Applicant appearing on his own behalf.
S. Evans, appearing on behalf of Team Global Express Pty Ltd.
T. O’Doherty, appearing on behalf of Toll Personnel Pty Limited.

Hearing details:
2025.
3 March (via Microsoft Teams)

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR785061>