Ms Glenda Hamilton v Ranstad - [2025] FWC 1883

[2025] FWC 1883

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Ms Glenda Hamilton
v

Ranstad & Others

(C2025/3814)

COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 4 JULY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal-jurisdictional objection that Applicant not dismissed-jurisdictional objection upheld-application dismissed

Introduction

This decision concerns an application made by Ms Glenda Hamilton (the Applicant) to deal with a general protections dispute involving an alleged dismissal under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Applicant contends that Ranstad (the First Respondent) contravened various provisions of Part 3-1 of the Act by dismissing her from her employment. The Respondent denies the allegations and also disputes that the Applicant was dismissed asserting that the Applicant has not been dismissed and remains employed.

The Fair Work Commission (Commission) generally does not have a determinative function in relation to applications brought under s.365 of the Act unless the parties consent to the Commission arbitrating the matter. Rather, the Commission’s role is to convene a conference and to issue a certificate to the Applicant, if it is satisfied that all reasonable efforts to resolve dispute have been or are likely to be successful. However, where the Respondent denies that the Applicant was dismissed within the meaning of s.386 of the Act and objects to the application on this basis, the Commission is required first to determine whether the Applicant was in fact dismissed or not.[1]

The Background

The parties filed materials in accordance with the directions. A hearing by Microsoft Teams was held on Thursday, 3 July 2025. The Applicant and First Respondent were both self-represented. The Applicant gave evidence on her own behalf. The Respondent submitted a witness statement from Mr Michael Stevenson who attended and gave evidence. The Applicant has sought to amend her application in various respects. There is no need to deal with that application as for the reasons that follow the application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Evidence

The First Respondent engaged the Applicant as a casual labour hire employee. The Applicant’s contract of employment was included in the evidence.

Relevantly that contract states the following:

“2.1 The relationship between yourself and Randstad is that of casual employee and employer. This Contract of Service will apply on each occasion you are offered and accept an Assignment from Randstad.
2.2. Randstad does not control the length of Assignments with its Clients. A Client may vary the length of an Assignment or end your attendance at an Assignment at their absolute discretion, and on short notice. This includes prior to the commencement of an Assignment if the Client reassesses their needs. Changes to the internal workload, operational requirements and budgetary funding can all impact the length of an Assignment.
2.3. If you accept an assignment, at all times, you can elect to accept or reject work. Likewise, Randstad is not obligated to offer work. All work that is offered by Randstad is on an as needed basis, and in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ms Glenda Hamilton v Ranstad and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 1883
Decision Date: 4 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Glenda Hamilton applied to the Fair Work Commission for relief in respect of an alleged dismissal by Ranstad. The Commission was required to first determine if it had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Applicant argued that she had been dismissed by Ranstad and sought to rely on the Commission's power under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ranstad objected to the application on the basis that the Applicant had not been dismissed within the meaning of section 386 of the Act. The Commission found that the Applicant had not been dismissed because the Respondent had not taken any action that intended to bring the employment relationship to an end or had that probable result. Instead, Ranstad had simply informed the Applicant that the client no longer required her services, which was consistent with the terms of her casual employment. The Commission held that the Respondent's failure to directly contradict the Applicant's claim that she had been sacked did not constitute action by the employer that intended to bring the employment relationship to an end or had that probable result. The jurisdictional objection was upheld, and the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders