Fair Work Sides with Game Tester After Unfair Dismissal
A US-based video game company has been ordered to reinstate and backpay an Australian worker it wrongly treated as a contractor. The Fair Work Commission found that Ms Tabitha Dickerson was, in law, an employee, and that her dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
Ms Dickerson had worked remotely for Kagura Games LLC since May 2022. She tested video games from her home in Australia and reported to a supervisor online. Although her contract described her as an independent contractor, she worked regular hours, was paid a fixed monthly amount, couldn’t subcontract her work, and had to follow strict processes. She was part of a larger team, submitted weekly reports, and used the company’s software tools.
In January 2025, she was suddenly removed from work and sent a termination letter via Discord. No reason was given. She asked for an explanation but received no response. Kagura later claimed it had received vague feedback about her performance, but it admitted she had never been warned or spoken to about any issues.
The Commission found that Kagura had significant control over how Ms Dickerson worked. She was not running her own business. She was working in Kagura’s business. The label of ‘contractor’ in the contract did not reflect the true nature of the relationship.
Despite being a US company, Kagura was held to be a national system employer under the Fair Work Act. It was a foreign corporation doing business in Australia, and it employed Ms Dickerson as part of that business. The protections of the Act applied.
The dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair. There was no valid reason, no warning, and no opportunity for Ms Dickerson to respond. The process failed every basic requirement of fairness.
Reinstatement was ordered. The Commission rejected concerns that Ms Dickerson would be mistreated, noting Kagura had participated in the proceedings professionally. The company was also ordered to backpay six months’ wages—totalling USD $9,450.
This case confirms that employment protections apply based on substance, not paperwork. If you work like an employee, you may be one—even if your contract says otherwise, and even if your employer is based overseas.
Key Takeaways – Dickerson v Kagura Games LLC [2025]
Contract terms don’t determine legal status. The Commission looked beyond the “independent contractor” label. What mattered was how the relationship operated in practice.
Control and integration = employment. Kagura controlled how, when and with what tools Ms Dickerson worked. She reported to a supervisor, worked as part of a team, and couldn’t subcontract. These were strong indicators of employment.
Regular pay, not task-based invoices. Ms Dickerson received a fixed monthly payment regardless of specific hours or output. She didn’t invoice or operate like an independent business. This supported a finding of employment.
Overseas companies can be national system employers. Kagura was a foreign corporation conducting business in Australia. That made it subject to the Fair Work Act and its unfair dismissal rules.
No valid reason + no procedure = unfair dismissal. Ms Dickerson was dismissed without warning, without explanation, and without an opportunity to respond.
Reinstatement is the primary remedy. Despite Ms Dickerson’s concerns about returning, the Commission found reinstatement appropriate. It emphasised that personal discomfort is not enough to avoid reinstatement where the employer has acted without malice.
Misunderstanding Australian law is no defence. Kagura relied on its US-based practices and contract terms. That did not excuse its failure to follow fair dismissal procedures under Australian law.
