Supermarket casual’s unavailability provided valid reason for dismissal

The Fair Work Commission has upheld the termination of a casual Coles employee who did not accept a shift in over 90 days, confirming the fact the employee’s “availability did not align with operational requirements” constituted a valid reason for dismissal, but suggested the process adopted by the employer when concluding the employment of casuals who have “not worked for a substantial period of time” could be improved.

The employee commenced work for the supermarket in South-East Queensland in 2021, and by August 2023 was typically accepting short shifts in the dairy department of the store, commencing at 6am. By the end of 2023, the employee perceived the relationship with his store manager to have become “hostile”, and he commenced looking for work in nearby Coles stores, hoping to secure a part-time engagement of approx. 12 hours per week. In 2024, the employee’s caring responsibilities changed, limiting his availability to shifts between 9am – 2pm, preferably within the dairy/freezer department. Although having the necessary training and experience, he rejected shifts starting at 9am in the meat department and “considered the [employer] ought to accommodate his requirement to work in the dairy/freezer department from 9:00am”.

The casual provided evidence he attempted to text or call the store on eight occasions between May and July of 2024, and also posted his availability on the Coles “storehub”, but was not offered any shifts. He conceded he never ventured into the store to have a discussion with management, “even though the store was not very far from his home”.

On 21 July 2024, the employee was sent an email – which he maintains was directed to his junk folder – notifying him he had not worked a shift in over 60 days and inviting the employee to advise/confirm his current availability. The correspondence also warned that, if action was not taken by 4 August, and/or “your availability does not meet operational needs”, that the employer would “not be in a position to offer you any further shifts”. Subsequent correspondence issued 18 August 2024 identified the casual had not worked a shift in over 90 days and advised, “As you have either not returned your availability information, or your availability does not meet the needs of the business at this time, Coles will not offer you any further casual shifts”.

Commissioner Hunt found the employee’s limited availability provided a valid reason for dismissal, noting he was a “casual employee who had indicated a small window of availability around his responsibilities of picking his children up from school… and he essentially only wished to work in the dairy department”. She further observed that the employer “had no desire to roster casual employees from 9:00am in the dairy department; the work needs to be performed from 6:00am”, adding there was “nothing unreasonable about the [employer’s] operational requirements”.

Valid reason notwithstanding, Commissioner Hunt was critical that “the method of communicating with casual employees who have not worked for a substantial period of time, nor updated their availability, is by way of email communication”, concluding:

“Best practice would certainly be for the relevant Store Manager to invite such employees to the store for a meeting to discuss their ongoing availability. If a casual employee wanted to take the Store Manager up on the meeting, it should occur. I imagine there would be many instances of an apathetic casual employee not wishing to continue their employment and not wishing to return to the store to discuss. In that instance, the employment could end by way of email communication.”

Whilst commenting that the employer “ought to have invited [the employee] to a meeting with the store manager to discuss his availability before dismissing him”, Commissioner Hunt conceded such a meeting would not have prevented the casual’s termination “due to his limited availability not meeting the operational requirements of the [employer]”. Finding the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, Commissioner Hunt dismissed the application.

Fear v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 573 (25 February 2025)