Alexius Fraser v JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1537

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Alexius Fraser v JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd (U2025/16903) COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD NEWCASTLE, 28 APRIL 2026 Unfair dismissal application – whether minimum employment period completed – jurisdictional objection upheld – application dismissed BACKGROUND [1] Alexius Fraser commenced casual employment with JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd (JB Hi- Fi) as a Retail Team Member on 21 April 2025. On 16 October 2025, Ms Fraser was issued with a formal request to attend a meeting on 17 October 2025 to discuss alleged inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. Ms Fraser attended a meeting with Adam Tennenini (HR Business Partner) and Keighley Smyth (Sales Manager) on 17 October 2025. Ms Fraser was verbally informed at the end of the meeting that her employment was terminated and was escorted off the premises. Ms Fraser received a termination letter on 22 October 2025 which was dated 20 October 2025. Ms Fraser filed an unfair dismissal application on 22 October 2025. JB Hi-Fi’s position is that Ms Fraser had not completed the minimum employment period of 6 months to be eligible to make an unfair dismissal application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) when she was dismissed on 17 October 2025. This decision concerns whether Ms Fraser was eligible to make an unfair dismissal application. [2] I held a hearing via video on 20 April 2026. Ms Fraser provided evidence in support of her case. JB Hi-Fi relied on evidence from Mr Tennenini and Ms Smyth. AUTHORITIES [3] The Full Bench in Wayne Shortland v The Smiths Snackfood Co Ltd1 confirmed that a period of continuous service by a casual employee is broken only when the employer or employee make it clear to the other party that there will be no further engagements. The Full Bench in Mohammed Ayub v NSW Trains2 identified a general principle that an employer must “communicate to the employee by plain or unambiguous words or conduct that the contract is terminated.” CONSIDERATION [2026] FWC 1537 DECISION -- 1 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 1537 2 [4] I consider the evidence establishes that Mr Tennenini communicated to Ms Fraser at the end of the meeting held on 17 October 2025 that her employment with JB Hi-Fi was terminated effective immediately. Mr Tennenini and Ms Smyth provided consistent evidence that a termination was communicated in clear terms to Ms Fraser during the meeting. Ms Fraser accepts that she collected her belongings when the meeting ended and was escorted from the premises by Ms Smyth. Ms Fraser largely accepted in cross-examination that Mr Tennenini indicated her employment was terminated at the end of the meeting. Mr Tennenini provided a record of notes from the meeting which indicates Ms Fraser was advised of the dismissal at the end of the meeting. The evidence demonstrates that Mr Tennenini communicated in unambiguous words that Ms Fraser’s casual employment was terminated on 17 October 2025. [5] Ms Fraser argued that the position was not clear because she remained rostered for work after 17 October 2025 and did not receive a termination letter until 22 October 2025. I accept these matters had the potential to create a degree of confusion about the date of the dismissal, particularly given Ms Fraser’s personal circumstances. However, I do not consider these matters are sufficient to establish that Ms Fraser remained employed after 17 October 2025 given the evidence from Mr Tennenini, Ms Smyth, and Ms Fraser about what was stated during their meeting on 17 October 2025. [6] I also note that Ms Fraser’s text messages with her sister in the afternoon on 17 October 2025 are consistent with Ms Fraser being advised of her dismissal during the meeting with Mr Tennenini and Ms Smyth. The messages raise concern about the lack of a termination letter. There would have been no reason for Ms Fraser and her sister to discuss the absence of a termination letter unless Ms Fraser had indicated to her sister that she had been verbally informed of her dismissal during the meeting on 17 October 2025. [7] I find that Ms Fraser was employed by JB Hi-Fi from 21 April 2025 until 17 October 2025. That means Ms Fraser had not completed the minimum employment period of six months to be eligible to make an unfair dismissal application. [8] It is not necessary to determine whether Ms Fraser was a regular casual employee with a reasonable expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis because Ms Fraser would not have completed the minimum employment period even if all her casual service is counted. [9] Ms Fraser’s application is dismissed. COMMISSIONER Appearances: Ms A Fraser representing herself. -- 2 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 1537 3 Ms A Cavanough from Seyfarth Shaw Australia representing JB Hi-Fi. Hearing details: 2026. 20 April. Via video. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR799220> 1 Wayne Shortland v The Smiths Snackfood Co Ltd [2010] FWAFB 5709 at [10] to [13]. 2 [2016] FWCFB 5500 at [17]. -- 3 of 3 --