Amal Mohamad v Bright Beginners Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 3223

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Amal Mohamad v Bright Beginners Pty Ltd (U2026/10030) COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD NEWCASTLE, 24 AUGUST 2026 Unfair dismissal application – casual child educator – jurisdictional objection based on no dismissal – dispute about verbal discussion – whether applicant sent home for the day or dismissed – applicant’s evidence preferred – applicant dismissed – extension of time issue remains to be considered – directions issued BACKGROUND [1] Bright Beginners Pty Ltd (Bright Beginners) operates a childcare business at Greenacre in Sydney. Amal Mohamad worked for Bright Beginners as a casual educator from around 15 January 2024 to 12 May 2026. Mrs Mohamad was due to commence a period of approved unpaid leave related to her wedding and honeymoon from 13 May 2026 until 19 June 2026. Mrs Mohamad was directed to leave the centre by Shada Hassoun (Director) on 12 May 2026 before her shift ended. That occurred because Ms Hassoun became concerned about Mrs Mohamad allegedly communicating with a former employee in breach of the centre’s policies. Mrs Mohamad says she was dismissed by Bright Beginners on 12 May 2026 with the dismissal being communicated verbally by Ms Hassoun. Mrs Mohamad filed an unfair dismissal application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) on 6 June 2026. Bright Beginners say that Mrs Mohamad was only sent home for the day on 12 May 2026 and that they expected Mrs Mohamad to return to work after her honeymoon on 19 June 2026. Bright Beginners say there was no dismissal at the initiative of Bright Beginners and that Mrs Mohamad is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application. This decision concerns whether Mrs Mohamad was dismissed by Bright Beginners within the meaning of s.386 of the FW Act. [2] I conducted a hearing via video on 13 August 2026. Mrs Mohamad provided evidence in support of her application. Bright Beginners relied on evidence from Ms Hassoun (Director). AUTHORITIES [2026] FWC 3223 DECISION -- 1 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 3223 2 [3] The Full Bench in Shortland v Smiths Snackfood1 made the important point that the effect of s.384 of the FW Act is that casual employment does not start and end with each engagement as understood in the common law. [4] 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.2 [5] The Full Bench in Humeniuk v Sculpture by the Sea3 confirmed that assessing whether a casual employee has been dismissed requires an objective assessment of whether the act of the employer resulted directly or consequentially in the termination of the employment and the employment relationship was not left voluntarily by the employee. The question is whether a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have understood that the employer terminated the employment. CONSIDERATION [6] There is no significant dispute between the parties about what happened prior to 12 May 2026. Mrs Mohamad worked regularly as a casual employee from around 15 January 2024 until 12 May 2026. Mrs Mohamad requested time off from her casual work from 13 May 2026 to 19 June 2026 because of her wedding and honeymoon. That request was approved. Mrs Mohamad never intended to perform work from 13 May 2026 until 19 June 2026. [7] The critical and highly contentious issue in this case is what was stated by Ms Hassoun to Mrs Mohamad on 12 May 2026. The evidence about the relevant conversation between Mrs Mohamad and Ms Hassoun comprises: • Oral evidence from Mrs Mohamad and Ms Hassoun. • Video footage submitted by Mrs Mohamad. The footage was provided to Mrs Mohamad by Ms Hassoun’s sister, Mariam. Ms Hassoun and her sister have apparently fallen out. • Incident reports completed by Rida Sayed (Educator) and Shahreen Imam (Educator). [8] Ms Hassoun’s evidence is that she told Mrs Mohamad to go home for the day on 12 May 2026 but did not communicate that she was terminating Mrs Mohamad’s employment. That account is supported by the incident reports completed by Ms Sayed and Ms Imam. [9] Mrs Mohamad’s evidence is that Ms Hassoun stated the following after raising concerns about Mrs Mohamad speaking with her sister: “I’ve seen enough, I’ve seen enough, we are not allowed to communicate with ex- employees, I am going to have to let you go… you need to get all your items out of the locker.” [10] I prefer Mrs Mohamad’s evidence on this issue. Mrs Mohamad presented as a very credible witness during the hearing. Ms Hassoun’s evidence tended to be self-serving at times and not entirely consistent. 1 Wayne Shortland v The Smiths Snackfood Co Ltd [2010] FWAFB 5709 at [10] to [13]. 2 Wayne Shortland v The Smiths Snackfood Co Ltd [2010] FWAFB 5709 at [10] to [13]. 3 Yuri Humeniuk v Sculpture by the Sea Incorporated [2025] FWCFB 212 at [51] to [53]. -- 2 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 3223 3 [11] Mrs Mohamad’s evidence is also consistent with the video footage. The footage is consistent with Ms Hassoun telling Mrs Mohamad she was letting her go. Mrs Mohamad can be seen walking into a room to collect her water bottle and then heading for the stairs towards the exit. Ms Hassoun can then be heard asking whether Mrs Mohamad has collected all her belongings as Mrs Mohamad leaves the building abruptly in an agitated state. Ms Hassoun is then recorded telling her father about the incident. Ms Hassoun tells her father she told Mrs Mohamad to leave. Ms Hassoun does not state she just sent Mrs Mohamad home for the day. Ms Hassoun’s father then suggests Ms Hassoun should have told Mrs Mohamad to “fuck off.” [12] I do not consider any significant weight should be given to the evidence from Ms Sayed and Ms Imam. They did not attend the hearing to provide evidence. It is also likely that Ms Sayed and Ms Imam would want to support Ms Hassoun’s position given she is the director of the business. The video footage also suggests that Ms Sayed and Ms Imam could not have seen and heard everything that was said between Ms Hassoun and Mrs Mohamad. Any hearsay evidence from Ms Sayed and Ms Imam based on what they have been told by Ms Hassoun is of little assistance in determining what occurred. [13] Mrs Mohamad’s conduct in sending a message to a family WhatsApp chat group at around 2:19pm on 12 May 2026 stating that she had been fired and then leaving the centre’s WhatsApp chat group for staff at around 2:42pm on 12 May 2026, is also consistent with her evidence that she had been told by Ms Hassoun that she was being let go. [14] I find based on an objective assessment that Ms Hassoun verbally communicated a legally effective decision to terminate Mrs Mohamad’s employment at around 1:47pm on 12 May 2026. A reasonable person would have understood that Ms Hassoun terminated Mrs Mohamad’s employment with Bright Beginners when she stated Mrs Mohamad was being “let go” and directed her to collect her possessions and leave the centre. [15] An unusual feature of this case is the evidence about a WhatsApp message Ms Hassoun says she sent to Mrs Mohamad at around 3:32pm on 12 May 2026. Ms Hassoun provided a copy of the message. The message states Ms Hassoun wants to speak with Mrs Mohamad when she returns from her honeymoon and says Mrs Mohamad should not worry about work during her honeymoon. The message is consistent with Ms Hassoun’s evidence that she sent Mrs Mohamad home for the day to deescalate a situation but did not communicate that she was dismissed. Mrs Mohamad was adamant that she never received this message. There are discrepancies between the identification details for Mrs Mohamad which appear on the message provided by Ms Hassoun and other WhatsApp messages with Mrs Mohamad. The reason for the discrepancies are not entirely clear, but I consider they are sufficient to cast some doubt on the veracity of the message. Further, as stated previously, I found Mrs Mohamad to be a more credible witness than Ms Hassoun. After considering all the evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mrs Mohamad received the message provided by Ms Hassoun. [16] In any event, even if I had accepted that Mrs Mohamad received the message from Ms Hassoun, I consider the message would only constitute an offer of re-employment. I have found that Ms Hassoun communicated a legally effective dismissal to Mrs Mohamad at around 1:47pm on 12 May 2026. I do not consider in this case that Ms Hassoun could negate Mrs Mohamad’s dismissal later in the afternoon on 12 May 2026 by sending a message which -- 3 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 3223 4 suggested she was still employed. If Mrs Mohamad had received the message and agreed to continue working at the centre when she returned from her honeymoon, the case would be different. However, here I have found that Ms Hassoun communicated a legally effective dismissal, and Mrs Mohamad has never agreed to recommence working at the centre. I consider Mrs Mohamad was entitled to adopt that position and to file an unfair dismissal application. [17] I similarly do not accept that Bright Beginner’s conduct in not deleting Mrs Mohamad from their internal administrative systems and not removing her access to staff communication channels can negate Ms Hassoun’s conduct in communicating a legally effective dismissal at around 1:47pm on 12 May 2026. Once Ms Hassoun communicated the legally effective dismissal, I do not consider steps taken unilaterally by Bright Beginners could have the legal effect of negating the dismissal. [18] I suspect what occurred here is that Ms Hassoun pivoted to preparing to defend an unfair dismissal application after she saw that Mrs Mohamad had removed herself from the staff WhatsApp chat at around 2:42pm on 12 May 2026. Ms Hassoun’s purported message to Mrs Mohamad at around 3:32pm on 12 May 2026 and Bright Beginners not recording that Mrs Mohamad had been terminated within its internal systems are consistent with this explanation. In any event, I do not need to make a finding on this issue because it would not impact the conclusion that Ms Hassoun communicated a legally effective dismissal to Mrs Mohamad at around 1:47pm on 12 May 2026. [19] As I indicated during the hearing, Bright Beginners position here is practically problematic. Bright Beginners say Mrs Mohamad remains a casual employee, despite not being rostered for any shifts since 12 May 2026. That is obviously explainable for the period of 13 May 2026 until 19 June 2026 because Mrs Mohamad was not available to work. However, Bright Beginners has not rostered Mrs Mohamad for any shifts since 19 June 2026 despite being aware that Mrs Mohamad had returned from her honeymoon. If I accept Bright Beginner’s position, Mrs Mohamad can request that shifts be provided to her. Bright Beginners could offer shifts, and Mrs Mohamad could return to work. However, given the animosity between the parties, the almost certain outcome is that no shifts would be offered to Mrs Mohamad. That would mean the employment relationship remains on foot indefinitely unless Bright Beginners communicates a decision to dismiss Mrs Mohamad, or Mrs Mohamad resigns. I do not consider that outcome is genuinely in the interests of either party. I consider the parties both know that Mrs Mohamad will not be returning to work for Bright Beginners. The argument that Mrs Mohamad remains employed by Bright Beginners appears to be a convenient attempt to deny Mrs Mohamad access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, rather than a position that is genuinely held by Bright Beginners. I consider that type of uncertain outcome is not intended by the FW Act given eligible casual employees are clearly intended to have access to the unfair dismissal regime. CONLUSION [20] I find that Mrs Mohamad was dismissed by Bright Beginners at around 1:47pm on 12 May 2026. [21] Bright Beginner’s jurisdictional objection based on the argument that Mrs Mohamad was not dismissed is rejected. -- 4 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 3223 5 [22] Given my finding that Mrs Mohamad was dismissed by Bright Beginners on 12 May 2026, Mrs Mohamad’s unfair dismissal application filed on 6 June 2026 was made four days after the 21-day filing period ended on 2 June 2026. That means Mrs Mohamad requires an extension of time to proceed with the application. [23] I issue the following directions in relation to the issue of whether Mrs Mohamad should be granted an extension of time to file her unfair dismissal application: 1. Mrs Mohamad is to file any evidence and submissions in support of her request for an extension of time by 5:00pm AEST on Monday, 7 September 2026. 2. Bright Beginners is to file any evidence and submissions in opposition to Mrs Mohamad’s request for an extension of time by 5:00pm AEST on Monday, 21 September 2026. 3. A hearing regarding whether Mrs Mohamad should be granted an extension of time will be held via video at 10:00am AEST on Friday, 2 October 2026. [24] Given the resources the parties have already spent on this application and a further jurisdictional issue now needs to be determined, I encourage the parties to consider directly negotiating a resolution that allows them to go their separate ways and move on from these events. COMMISSIONER Appearances: Ms N El Badawi from N.E Law & Associates representing Ms Mohamad. Mr J Polese of counsel instructed by Karnib Saddik Law Firm for Bright Beginners. Hearing details: 2026. 13 August. Via video. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR813585> -- 5 of 5 --