How a Legally Blind Worker Proved His Unfair Dismissal

A recent decision by the Fair Work Commission highlights how casual employees, especially those with regular shifts and long service, can still be protected from unfair dismissal. In Coats v Palmers Group Pty Ltd t/a Palmers Relocations, the Commission found that Mr Mark Coats, a legally blind furniture removal assistant, was unfairly dismissed after more than three years of work. He was awarded compensation despite his casual status and the employer’s claims of redundancy and misconduct.

This case reveals how casual employment, if regular and consistent, can establish unfair dismissal rights. It also underlines the importance of procedural fairness and the need for employers to justify dismissals, particularly when vulnerable workers are involved.

Casual Does Not Mean Disposable

Palmers Relocations argued that Mr Coats was a casual who had not worked long enough to be protected under unfair dismissal laws. Mr Coats disagreed. He produced a detailed timeline of his shifts, showing regular weekly work, a clear communication system for rostering, and repeated re-engagement even after absences.

The Commission agreed. Despite being technically a casual, Mr Coats’ work was regular and systematic. He also had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. This meant his service counted toward the six-month minimum employment period. Medical leave, bereavement, and approved holidays did not break his continuous service.

The lesson here is clear. If your casual work follows a pattern and you are routinely rostered and re-engaged, you may have legal protections regardless of your label.

Dismissed While on Approved Leave

Mr Coats was dismissed via text while overseas visiting his son. This trip had been approved by the employer months earlier. The message cited vague concerns, mentioning reduced hours and frustration about messages Mr Coats had sent.

The Commission found the dismissal process unacceptable. The redundancy claim was unsupported. The employer failed to provide evidence of a significant business downturn and offered no consultation or redeployment options, as required under the Award.

The employer also alleged misconduct. They claimed Mr Coats had sent threatening messages. However, no specifics were provided, no witnesses were called, and the person making the claims did not appear before the Commission. One message sent by Mr Coats after his dismissal expressed frustration but also contained an apology. The Commission found this was not misconduct.

No Process, No Justification

Mr Coats was given no opportunity to respond to the alleged concerns before being dismissed. There was no meeting, no support person, and no chance to explain. These procedural failures were central to the Commission’s finding of unfair dismissal.

The Commission also considered the personal impact. Mr Coats is legally blind and was the sole income earner for his family. The dismissal caused serious harm, and this added weight to the conclusion that it was harsh and unreasonable.

Given the breakdown in trust, reinstatement was not appropriate. Instead, the Commission awarded compensation based on eight weeks of likely future work. Mr Coats received $6,819 in lost income and $784 in superannuation. This amount was based on his average hours and Award rates.

While not a large figure, the decision was a clear victory. It upheld his rights and confirmed that the dismissal was unlawful.

What This Means for Employees

This case delivers several key takeaways:

• Casual workers can still be protected from unfair dismissal if their work is regular and systematic.

• Absences due to injury, illness, or bereavement do not break continuous service.

• Redundancy must be genuine, and consultation is mandatory if covered by an Award.

• Misconduct allegations must be specific and backed by evidence.

• The Commission can consider vulnerability and personal impact when assessing harshness.

Employers cannot hide behind labels or vague justifications when terminating long-serving staff. Mr Coats, a dedicated and capable worker, challenged his dismissal and succeeded, demonstrating that all employees, regardless of disability status, deserve fair treatment.