Labour Hire and Dismissal – Casual Employment Considerations

| May 2, 2025

The Fair Work Commission’s (FWC) recent decision in Raskov v Adecco Australia Pty Ltd is a critical reminder of the complex realities that surround casual employment within labour hire arrangements. In particular, the decision confirms that the ending of a host employer assignment doesn’t automatically mean the end of employment—unless certain conditions are met.

For HR teams and labour hire providers, it’s important to understanding how casual status, assignment terminations, and ongoing employment obligations intersect.

Background of the Case

Ms Zvetanka Raskov was engaged by Adecco Australia Pty Ltd as a casual labour hire employee and assigned to work at Amazon’s Kemps Creek site. Over nine months, she worked consistent hours—initially full-time, later reduced by request—and followed Adecco’s protocols for leave and workplace conduct. 

In June 2023, Adecco received misconduct allegations against Ms Raskov from Amazon. She was stood down immediately, investigated, and ultimately removed from her assignment on 24 August 2023. Although Adecco maintained she was still “technically employed,” no alternative assignments were offered, and her profile was referred back to the recruitment team with little follow-up. 

Ms Raskov brought a general protections application, claiming she had been dismissed. Adecco argued that she had not been dismissed but merely removed from the Amazon assignment. 

Key Findings: Casual Doesn’t Mean Disposable

The FWC found that Ms Raskov was indeed dismissed, despite the casual nature of her employment and the “technical” continuation of employment status under Adecco’s internal framework. Key points from Deputy President Wright’s decision include: 

> Employment Relationship vs. Assignment 

Even though Ms Raskov was employed on a casual, assignment-by-assignment basis, the Commission determined that her consistent, regular work pattern over nine months reflected an ongoing employment relationship.

> Dismissal by Conduct 

Although the employment contract labelled Ms Raskov as a casual employee, the Fair Work Commission found that Adecco’s actions—terminating Ms Raskov’s assignment based on alleged misconduct, failing to take meaningful steps to redeploy her, and not offering any realistic alternative assignments—directly led to the end of Ms Raskov’s employment. These actions constituted a dismissal initiated by the employer, falling within the definition of dismissal under section 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). (FWA)

> Labour Hire Responsibilities 

The case differentiates between a host employer’s role and the labour hire agency’s responsibility. Amazon’s role was limited to raising concerns. It was Adecco that investigated, suspended, and ultimately removed Ms Raskov—making Adecco the effective decision-maker in her dismissal.

Lessons for Employers: When Ending an Assignment Is Ending Employment 

This case carries strong lessons for HR practitioners and labour hire agencies managing casual engagements: 

• Dismissal Risk Still Applies to Casuals
  
  Even where workers are casual and assignment-based, regular engagement over time creates an employment relationship that cannot be ended lightly or without procedural fairness. 

• Clear Post-Assignment Processes Are Essential
  
  Telling a worker they can apply for other roles after being removed from an assignment is insufficient—especially when no real effort is made to reassign them. 

• Don’t Rely Solely on Contractual Clauses
  
  Adecco’s contract reserved the right to terminate with one hour’s notice, but the Commission found that the actual termination wasn’t contractually justified or aligned with casual employment principles. 

Misconduct Allegations Must Be Handled Transparently: If an assignment is terminated due to misconduct, but the agency doesn’t disclose findings or pursue reassignment, it will likely be interpreted as a dismissal. 

Final Thoughts

The Raskov decision is a sharp reminder that in the world of labour hire and casual employment, what matters most is not the label on the contract—but the substance of the employment relationship and how it is brought to an end. Even in highly flexible, assignment-based work, an employer’s actions can trigger a dismissal within the meaning of the FWA. 

For employers—particularly labour hire agencies—this case reinforces the importance of: 

• Managing terminations and misconduct allegations with procedural fairness. 

• Making genuine efforts to redeploy staff where assignments end prematurely. 

• Avoiding assumptions that casuals can be “let go” without consequence. 

At IRiQ Law, we work with employers to navigate the legal nuances of casual employment, labour hire, and workplace rights. Whether you’re reviewing contractual arrangements, responding to general protections claims, or facing complex dismissal allegations, our expert legal team is here to help ensure your practices are compliant, defensible, and fair. 

If you’re uncertain about your obligations in managing casual or labour hire engagements, contact IRiQ Law for tailored legal advice.