Case: Cannavan v Tennis Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2094

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision has highlighted risks for organisations when classifying workers as volunteers or casual employees. Organisations should take note that imposing obligations on a worker that continue past the end of a shift may affect how the relationship is characterised at law, and when a ‘dismissal’ occurs.

What happened
On 27 October 2025, Mr Simon Cannavan and Ms Karen Mak (Applicants) lodged general protections claims alleging that they were dismissed from their employment after Tennis Australia terminated their officiating memberships, and that their dismissals were in contravention of general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

Tennis Australia supports local community tennis clubs as well as professional tournaments. The organisation engaged the Applicants as Tennis Officials to act as umpires, referees and linespersons at these events. For each separate tournament, the Applicants were required to sign a casual employment contract or hobbyist (also referred to as ‘volunteers’) terms and conditions intended to cover the period of the relevant tournament.

However, as Tennis Officials, the Applicants were also bound by the terms and conditions of their Officiating Membership for the entirety of their engagement with Tennis Australia.

Holding an officiating membership is a prerequisite for acting as an official at Tennis Australia events, and its cancellation prevented the Applicants from applying for and being offered a casual employment contract to officiate future tournaments.

Tennis Australia alleged that it cancelled the Applicants’ officiating memberships due to the Applicants allegedly engaging in inappropriate conduct in breach of their obligations.

Tennis Australia argued that the Applicants were casual employees whose casual engagements ended at the conclusion of a tournament. On that basis, it asserted that the Applicants had not been dismissed from their employment and that their casual arrangements were contracts for a specified task, time or season in the context of section 386(2)(a) of the Act.

Fair Work Commission’s findings
The FWC rejected Tennis Australia’s position, finding that the Applicants were dismissed when their officiating memberships were cancelled. The FWC found that this constituted a dismissal at the initiative of the employer within the meaning of s 386(1)(a) of the Act.

The FWC determined that the contractual arrangements reflected an ongoing casual employment relationship. The FWC came to this finding having regard to the reality and totality of the terms of the relationship.

Key aspects of the relationship that the FWC took into consideration when making its determination were:

1. The contracts used ambiguous and inconsistent language, referring to the term ‘employment’ and stating that employment ended after each shift while simultaneously imposing obligations that applied between tournaments, including obligations to attend training and other commitments, indicating an ongoing degree of control.
2. Tennis Officials were required to comply with several policies contained in the Officiating Membership arrangements on an ongoing basis, including being required to maintain accreditation.
3. Tennis Officials were required to meet minimum participation requirements each year.
4. Tennis Australia provided uniforms to Tennis Officials, even where they had not secured work at a specific tournament.

Why this decision matters

This case serves as a warning to sporting organisations, not-for-profits and other organisations that rely on volunteers or casual employees, particularly if a person may be engaged as both a volunteer and a casual employee.

Where an organisation exercises control over workers and imposes obligations that apply outside of a casual employee’s allocated work shifts, the existence of a casual employment relationship may continue past the end of the shift. In these circumstances, organisations may be exposed to unfair dismissal, general protections or other dismissal-related claims if their actions bring the ongoing employment relationship to an end.

Recommendations
Employers should review their arrangements to ensure that contractual terms align with the reality and totality of relationships. In particular, organisations should ensure that their arrangements with volunteers or casual employees genuinely reflect the true nature of the relationship in practice.

We can assist with reviewing worker classifications, as well as drafting employment contracts and volunteer agreements.

This article was written by Dana Popovic, Lawyer, and Natasha Sim, Partner.