Machine operator claims unfair dismissal after phone call sacking

Late last year, Fair Work commissioner Scott Connolly upheld a decision to dismiss a repair machine operator on Victoria Rail Lines, due to commercial agreement changes.

Jason Argent recommenced work with P & C Excavations on 11 March 2025 as a casual machine operator at Swan Hill, Victoria, after seasonal contracts with the company in 2024, 2019, and 2017. Argent worked his final contract for the company until his termination by the company’s director, Mr Fusca, on 24 April 2025.

Connolly heard that Argent was an experienced machine and plant operator who had been performing railroad repair work since 2013. Argent’s role involves travelling around the state “replacing railway sleepers and associated track maintenance for six to eight months from around March each year”, the commission found.

Circumstances surrounding his dismissal

The commission heard that Fusca dismissed Argent after needing to “put off” two employees, following an email from Victoria Rail Lines representatives informing him that, from 28 April, they no longer required him to supply two of his machines to Ballarat.

Fusca submitted to the commission that he could not pay employees when “there was no work for them to do and he was not being paid for them to be engaged”.

On 24 April 2025, Fusca dismissed Argent over a phone call, informing him that he was to finish up the following day. Fusca gave evidence that during the call, he was clear on his decision to make Argent redundant as he was a casual employee and was “no longer needed because the machine he was on could continue to [be] operated by other full-time employees”.

Still entitled to consultation

Argent submitted that he was given “no notice or valid reason for his dismissal” and was allegedly deprived of the opportunity for consultation and redeployment; and sought compensation for the “injustice” – claiming unfair dismissal.

Fusca accepted that he had not consulted with Argent prior to making the decision; however, he submitted that because there were no opportunities for redeployment, there was “no utility in consultation”.

Connolly accepted that Fusca no longer required Argent’s job to be performed by anyone because of the operational requirements of the business; however, the commissioner maintained that Argent was entitled to consultation prior to his position being made redundant.

As a result of the failure to “[comply] with his obligation to genuinely consult”, the commission found that Argent’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

An unfair dismissal?

The commission found that although Fusca had not provided notice to Argent about his redundancy and that more notice for termination would have been ideal (Argent believed that he was provided less than 24 hours of notice), it accepted that Fusca did advise Argent about the dismissal and the reason for termination.

The commissioner upheld Fusca’s decision to dismiss Argent, ruling it was not “harsh, unreasonable, or unjust”, and rejected his application.

The case citation: Mr Jason Argent v P. & C. EXCAVATIONS PTY. LTD. (U2025/6057).