Adam Eales v RB Enterprises Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3346

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Adam Eales v RB Enterprises Pty Ltd (U2025/13952) COMMISSIONER REDFORD MELBOURNE, 12 NOVEMBER 2025 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – objection – minimum employment period – whether applicant was a regular case employee - objection dismissed [1] Mr Adam Eales has made an application to the Fair Work Commission under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an order granting a remedy, alleging he was unfairly dismissed by RB Enterprises Pty Ltd (RB Enterprises). [2] RB Enterprises objects to the application. It says Mr Eales, a casual employee, had not met the minimum employment period when he was dismissed. This is because, in RB Enterprises’ submission, Mr Eales was never a “regular casual employee” and never had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis1. [3] To assist in the determination of this issue, a short hearing was conducted on 23 October 2025 after the parties had both filed and served material about whether Mr Eales had completed the minimum employment period. Mr Eales appeared for himself at the hearing and Mr Khatri appeared along with Mr Bressan for RB Enterprises. [4] Mr Eales was employed by RB Enterprises on about 24 October 2023. He was employed as a Guest Service Agent at the Airport Tourist Village Melbourne which is a hotel accommodation facility located near the Tullamarine Airport in Melbourne. He was employed on a casual basis providing front office and overnight support. [5] Mr Eales provided a statement of the hours for which he was paid, which he said reflected the hours he worked for most of his employment – between November 2023 and when it was terminated in August 2025. The statement indicates Mr Eales performed work for RB Enterprises during almost every fortnight across this nearly two-year period. His hours of work were variable but often exceeded 40 hours per fortnight and sometimes exceeded 50 or 60 hours per fortnight. During most fortnights worked during 2024 he also worked “overnights”, often four times a fortnight. After the hearing, RB Enterprises wrote to my chambers and advised it did not object to the depiction of Mr Eales’ hours set out in his statement. [2025] FWC 3346 DECISION -- 1 of 3 -- [2025] FWC 3346 2 [6] RB Enterprises submitted that Mr Eales was covered by the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020. It submitted that under the Award, a casual employee has no guaranteed hours of work and receives a casual loading in lieu of leave and notice entitlements. It submitted that Mr Eales’ rosters fluctuated week to week in accordance with operational needs, and were absent any settled pattern, focusing in particular on a period between June 2025 and July 2025. It said Mr Eales was expressly engaged as a casual and was never promised ongoing or guaranteed hours and that hours were frequently reduced without advance notice and the Applicant was repeatedly reminded that work depended on occupancy and budget. It said that in these circumstances no reasonable person could expect continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis. [7] It seemed to me RB Enterprises was in this matter labouring under the misapprehension that a casual employee whose hours are not uniform is not a regular casual employee for the purposes of the Act. This is plainly not correct. It is well established that it is the “engagement” which must be regular and systematic, not the hours worked pursuant to such an engagement2. This does not mean the hours worked by the employee are not relevant at all – they are one of a number of relevant considerations in the analysis3. Several key principles can be gleaned from the authorities: a. The term “regular” should be construed liberally. It is not a synonym for words such as “uniform” or “constant”. b. “Regularity” may be constituted by frequent though unpredictable engagements although “systematic” need not involve either predictability of engagements or any assurance of work at all. c. Engagement under contracts on a “systematic basis” implies something more than regularity. The basis of engagement must exhibit something that can fairly be called a system, method or plan. [8] A “reasonable expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis” requires that the employee has subjectively formed an expectation of continuing employment by the employer on a regular and systematic basis, and that the expectation is reasonable4. If that expectation has been formed, it is necessary to assess whether it is a reasonable one. While this imports an objective standard, it does not limit the matters that may be taken into account in determining whether the expectation is reasonable5. [9] It was not contended before me that RB Enterprises is a small business. The minimum employment period in respect of Mr Eales’ employment with RB Enterprises is 6 months6. [10] Between the commencement of his employment in November 2023 and the termination of his employment in August 2025, Mr Eales comfortably completed a period of at least six months continuous service. During this time Mr Eales was a regular casual employee because his engagement was regular and systematic – he worked almost every fortnight, in the same or similar duties, including for a large portion of the period performing regular overnight work. His hours were not uniform, but he worked constantly over a two year period. Through this -- 2 of 3 -- [2025] FWC 3346 3 regularity he plainly had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment on this regular basis. [11] The objection to Mr Eales’ application – that he had not completed the minimum employment period at the time of his dismissal – is dismissed. The matter will be listed for a case management hearing to set down the next steps in this matter. COMMISSIONER Appearances: Mr Eales appeared for himself Mr Khatri and Mr Bressan appeared for the Respondent Hearing details: 2025 Online via MS Teams Wednesday 22 October Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR793522> 1 Fair Work Act 2009 s 383 & 384 2 Yaraka Holdings Pty Ltd v Giljevic (2006) ACTA 6; WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131; Chandler v Bed Bath N’ Table Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 306 [13] 3 Chandler v Bed Bath N’ Table Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 306 [14]; Bronze Hospitality Pty Ltd v Janell Hansson [2019] FWCFB 1099 [24] 4 Bronze Hospitality Pty Ltd v Hansson (No 2) [2019] FCA 1680 [40] 5 Ibid 6 Fair Work Act 2009 s 383 -- 3 of 3 --