Harrie Roberts v RWWA - [2025] FWC 2580

[2025] FWC 2580

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.66M - Application to deal with a dispute about changing from casual employment

Harrie Roberts

RWWA

(C2025/3939)

COMMISSIONER LIM

PERTH, 1 SEPTEMBER 2025

Casual conversion dispute – employment ceased – parties reached binding settlement in other matter – section 587 – no reasonable prospects of success – application dismissed

Background

On 29 April 2025, Ms Harrie Roberts applied under s 66M of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for the Commission to deal with a casual conversion dispute. The respondent in this matter is RWWA. On 26 May 2025, RWWA informed my Chambers that the parties were attending a conciliation conference on Thursday 29 May 2025 for Ms Roberts’ application filed under s 365 of the Act for the Commission to deal with a general protections dismissal dispute.

The parties subsequently executed a deed of settlement, which was provided to my Chambers.

On 11 July 2025, my Chambers wrote to Ms Roberts asking her to confirm whether she wished to discontinue her matter. RWWA wrote to Chambers to confirm that the matter had settled and RWWA had performed its obligations under the deed. On Wednesday 6 August 2025, my Chambers wrote to Ms Roberts again to ask whether she wished to discontinue her application. On Tuesday 12 August 2025, Ms Roberts informed my Chambers that she did not wish to discontinue her application as it was a separate application that was not resolved with her general protections application.

On Wednesday 13 August 2025, my Chambers wrote to the parties with the following observations:

the deed signed by both parties had a full and final release clause;
there was no disagreement that RWWA had complied with its obligations under the deed;
Ms Roberts’ application under s 365 against RWWA stated that her employment with RWWA ended on 11 March 2025, well before Ms Roberts made her application under s 66M of the Act on 29 April 2025; and
the Commission has previously found that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with a casual conversation dispute if there was no employment relationship at the time the application to the Commission is made.

The email also provided my preliminary view on Ms Roberts’ application as follows:

‘The Commissioner’s preliminary view on Ms Roberts’ application under s 66M of the Act is:
(a)The application should be dismissed under s 587(1)(c) of the Act. This is because the application does not have reasonable prospects of success for the following reasons:
i.Due to clause 3.4 of the Terms of Settlement, Ms Roberts has agreed to release all claims arising out of her employment with the Respondent.
ii.The Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with the s 66M application as it was made after the employment relationship ended.

(b)Either of the above grounds is enough by itself for Ms Roberts’ application under s 66M to be dismissed under s 587(1)(c).’

The parties were given until 12pm AWST, Friday 15 August to express…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Harrie Roberts v RWWA

Details

AGLC: Harrie Roberts v RWWA [2025] FWC 2580
Case: [2025] FWC 2580
Decision Date: 1 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harrie Roberts applied to the Fair Work Commission for assistance under section 66M of the Fair Work Act 2009 concerning a dispute about her conversion from casual employment to permanent employment. The respondent, RWWA, argued that the application should be dismissed as it lacked reasonable prospects of success due to the cessation of employment and a binding settlement reached between the parties in a related matter. The Commission, led by Commissioner Lim, was tasked with determining whether to proceed with the application or dismiss it based on the provided evidence and submissions from both parties.

The legal issues in this case centered around whether the Commission had jurisdiction to hear Ms. Roberts' application under section 66M of the Fair Work Act 2009 given that her employment had already ended and a binding settlement had been reached in a related matter. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess if the application had reasonable prospects of success, considering the full and final release clause in the settlement deed and the requirement for an existing employment relationship at the time the application was made.

Commissioner Lim determined that the application should be dismissed based on section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commissioner found that the application lacked reasonable prospects of success for two reasons. Firstly, Ms. Roberts had released all claims arising from her employment in the settlement deed, which included the claims related to her casual conversion dispute. Secondly, the Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear the application as it was filed after her employment with RWWA had ended. Both of these factors independently justified dismissing the application.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission ordered that Ms. Roberts' application under section 66M of the Fair Work Act 2009 be dismissed. The decision was based on the lack of reasonable prospects of success due to the binding settlement and the absence of an ongoing employment relationship at the time the application was made.

Orders