Left in Limbo, Then Silently Dismissed: How This Casual Fast-Food Worker Took On Guzman y Gomez and Won

When a young fast-food worker at Guzman y Gomez stopped receiving shifts, she was assured she was still employed. But behind the silence and vague reassurances lay something more disturbing—a dismissal that wasn’t acknowledged, explained, or justified. What followed was a case that peeled back the real risks facing casual employees in high-turnover industries.

Adrianna Permus worked as a casual crew member at GYG Carousel in Perth. Like many young workers, this was her first real job. She started strong in February 2023, working regular shifts, taking on extra duties, and even helping train new staff. Her colleagues described her as hardworking, trusted, and reliable. But by July 2024, the shifts began to disappear without explanation.

She did everything right. She asked her managers for more shifts. She made herself available. When nothing changed, she followed the company’s own policy and raised a formal complaint through head office, alleging discrimination in the allocation of work. The company’s internal HR representative assured her she was still employed, but no shifts followed. She remained in limbo.

Eventually, she brought a general protections claim to the Fair Work Commission, not for dismissal, but for discrimination. She still believed she was technically employed—because that’s what she’d been told. It wasn’t until the conference on 10 October 2024 that the company finally revealed their position: she was no longer employed, supposedly due to “performance issues.” This was the first time the dismissal had ever been communicated.

The Commission didn’t buy it.

Guzman y Gomez presented no evidence of poor performance. No warnings had ever been issued. In fact, Ms Permus had a glowing track record. Ten of her colleagues provided written statements supporting her work ethic, positivity, and dedication. GYG chose not to contest any of it. They didn’t cross-examine the witnesses or provide evidence of their own. They simply repeated a hollow justification and refused to engage further.

As the Commission found, there was no valid reason for her dismissal. Ms Permus was not told of the decision, wasn’t given an opportunity to respond, and had no access to a support person. There had been no misconduct. She had simply been dropped from the roster without notice—what some call “roster management” was, in legal terms, a dismissal.

This case exposes the undercurrent of vulnerability facing young and casual workers. GYG employed over 10,000 staff, most of them casual, many under 18. And yet it failed to act professionally. The decision slammed the employer’s conduct as confusing, unfair, and harmful. The Commission noted that the approach taken by HR had “undermined Ms Permus’s right to make a workplace complaint” and found the treatment had severely affected her wellbeing.

She had been misled, isolated, and ultimately let go without even being told. And for a young worker, that first experience can leave a mark.

The Commission awarded compensation. The Deputy President pointed out that the company gained a financial benefit from denying her shifts for ten weeks while still claiming she was employed.

This case confronts several common misunderstandings:

• Myth: “I’m a casual, so I have no unfair dismissal rights.”
  Wrong. If you’re a regular and systematic casual, you may still be protected—even if your employer stops rostering you.

• Myth: “If I’m not formally fired, I can’t bring a claim.”
  Wrong. A dismissal can happen silently when shifts stop without explanation. You don’t need an official termination letter to prove you were dismissed.

• Myth: “Big companies follow the rules.”
  Not always. Even major employers with HR teams and legal departments can fail spectacularly at the basics—communication, respect, and compliance.