When casual’s are “rostered out:” Why 0 hours can be a dismissal
It’s a familiar scenario for many casual workers: one day you’re working regular shifts—often full-time hours—and the next, you’re suddenly off the roster. No explanation. No warning or consultation about what just abruptly occurred. Just silence and no shifts; despite perhaps business operations continuing as per usual.
For many, the assumption is that casual workers have no real recourse in this situation. Employers often treat casuals as if they can be let go without any process or consequence. But the Fair Work Commission has made it clear—reducing a casual employee’s hours to zero can, in certain circumstances, be considered a dismissal.
Despite the label “casual,” employers are not free to quietly push employees out the door by simply ceasing to offer shifts, especially where there’s been a consistent, ongoing and regular pattern of work. Where an employee has a reasonable expectation of continued employment as a permanent employee, a sudden and unexplained removal from the roster can trigger protections under the Fair Work Act.
When Casual Employment Isn’t So “Casual”
Employers often rely on the technical definition of casual employment to avoid legal obligations. But in reality, many casuals work regular and systematic hours for months, even years. They may receive consistent rosters, have routine responsibilities, and be relied upon as permanent parts of the workforce.
In one matter we reviewed, a casual employee had been working full-time hours for over two years, often picking up overtime and being treated no differently from permanent staff. There had never been any indication that their role was at risk. Then, without warning, they were simply removed from the roster—no consultation, no process, no communication.
This was the first and only time such action had been taken. It represented a major shift in the employee’s working arrangement, carried out without justification or prior discussion. The employee was effectively “locked out” and treated as if their employment had ended—yet no formal termination occurred.
Despite being a casual, the employee had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. And when that expectation was suddenly disrupted without reason, it wasn’t just a change of hours—it was a dismissal.
Cutting Hours to Zero = Cutting Ties
Reducing a casual employee’s hours to zero—especially when there’s no plan to resume work—can be a clear signal that the employment relationship is over. The Fair Work Commission has recognised that termination doesn’t need to involve formal words or letters; it can be inferred from conduct.
If the employer’s actions amount to a decision to end the employment relationship, that’s a dismissal—even if they try to frame it as a roster change. And if that’s done without proper cause, without warning, and without consultation, it may be unfair and unlawful.
Employers are also expected to consult employees when major changes occur. Simply deciding behind closed doors to stop offering shifts, without giving the employee an opportunity to understand or respond, is not just poor practice—it can be a breach of their obligations under the Fair Work Act.
Case Study: When “No Shifts” Still Means Dismissal
In a 2023 decision of Jackson v Brisbane Quarters pertaining to the jurisdictional objection held by the employer claiming that the employee was not ‘dismissed’, the Fair Work Commission clarified that employers can’t quietly end a casual’s job by just taking them off the roster and can be considered as a termination.
The employee, a casual hostel worker, had been working regular full-time hours. After taking approved leave to manage stress from increasing workload pressure, the worker received a call from the employer the next day—advising that their time at the business was over, citing vague behavioural concerns.
Later, the employer changed its story, claiming it wasn’t a dismissal at all—just a case of “reduced hours,” with the potential for work to resume in the future if the employee improved their attitude.
The Commission rejected that narrative. It found the employer clearly intended to end the working relationship, and that cutting the employee’s hours to zero—without proper communication or consultation—was a dismissal.
Commissioner Wilson warned against the idea that casuals can be “dispensed with” simply by no longer allocating them shifts. Where the intention is to stop offering work altogether, the employer’s actions can and will be treated as a termination.
Takeaway: If your shifts suddenly disappear with no reason or warning, and there’s no real intention of bringing you back—you may have been dismissed.
What This Means for Casual Employees
If your hours have suddenly been cut to zero—without warning, explanation, or consultation—don’t assume your employer has done nothing wrong. You may still have legal protections, even as a casual.
This is especially true if:
You were working regular and systematic hours
You had no indication your job was in jeopardy
Your removal came without consultation
The reasons given were vague, shifting, or clearly pre-determined
The bottom line? Employers cannot avoid dismissal obligations by simply “ghosting” a casual employee. Being casual does not mean being disposable.
At Workplace Justice, we represent employees who’ve been pushed out under the radar—especially casuals quietly removed through zero-hour tactics. If your work suddenly stopped without explanation, you may have a claim under unfair dismissal or general protections laws.
