Fair Work Commission Case Review: Mofleh v Translationz Pty Ltd[2025] FWC 3751 (Deputy President Clancy, 8 December 2025)

This decision concerns an unfair dismissal application lodged by Dr Mir Ahmad Rasoul Mofleh against Translationz Pty Ltd. The central issue was whether Dr Mofleh had been dismissed at all for the purposes of s 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission ultimately found that no dismissal occurred, meaning the application had no jurisdictional foundation and had to be dismissed.

Background

Dr Mofleh commenced casual employment with Translationz on 22 May 2023 under a letter of engagement that made clear:

• his work was casual and offered “as required”,

• no guarantee of ongoing or regular hours existed, and

• he could choose which assignments to accept or decline.

The majority of his work involved VicRoads interpreting assignments.

Fair Work Commission Case Review: Mofleh v Translationz Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3751 (Deputy President Clancy, 8 December 2025)

On 17 July 2025, Translationz received a complaint regarding alleged conduct at VicRoads, prompting the company to send an email the following day outlining the concerns, including reported distribution of business cards, promoting external services, and translation issues during driving tests.

The email also notified him that his forthcoming VicRoads bookings had been deallocated while the matter was reviewed (see screenshot in the full decision HERE).

Despite this, he continued to hold other assignments, including work with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).

On 16 August 2025, he emailed the company instructing it to remove the remaining ART jobs from his portal, stating they could “assign them to whoever you want” and asking not to be blamed for late returns.

Dr Mofleh claimed that he was not offered further work until 7 November 2025—after lodging his unfair dismissal application.

Was There a Dismissal?

The Commission emphasised that to pursue an unfair dismissal remedy, an employee must first prove they were dismissed within the meaning of s 386.

Deputy President Clancy examined both limbs of the statutory definition:

Dismissal at the employer’s initiative – s 386(1)(a)

The Commission found no termination by Translationz because:

• the 18 July email did not notify dismissal—it notified a review,

• some work remained allocated after the VicRoads deallocation,

• Translationz did not withdraw all ongoing assignments, and

• further assignments were later offered (7 November).

Resignation forced by the employer – s 386(1)(b)

Translationz had suggested that the 16 August email constituted a resignation. The Commission rejected this, stating:

• no explicit resignation was made,

• Dr Mofleh asserted he had not resigned, and

• the evidence did not show that Translationz intended to end his employment, nor that its conduct made resignation the only reasonable option.

The Commission reiterated the test: a forced resignation requires that termination be the probable result of the employer’s conduct, leaving the employee with no real choice. That threshold was not met.

Key Factors Influencing the Decision

The Commission highlighted several critical considerations:

• Dr Mofleh was casual, with no guarantee of ongoing hours.• Retention of ART assignments showed the relationship was still active.

• Translationz had signalled investigation—not termination.

• Offering additional work months later demonstrated the employment relationship had not ended.

Conclusion

Deputy President Clancy found that:

• there was no termination initiated by the employer,

• there was no resignation, forced or otherwise, and

• the employment relationship had not come to an end within the meaning of s 386.

As a result, the unfair dismissal claim failed at the threshold stage. No remedy could be considered and no order was issued.

MYUNION Commentary

This decision highlights a pattern seen in casual employment disputes: a reduction in shifts or removal from specific assignments does not necessarily constitute dismissal. For workers, it demonstrates the importance of clear communication about employment status, especially where hours fluctuate.

For employers, the case serves as a reminder that even during investigations, clarity and proportional responses—such as pausing specific work rather than ending all assignments—may prevent an unintentional termination.

For casual workers, the key takeaway is that diminished hours or temporary suspension from certain tasks may not amount to dismissal unless the employer expressly ends the relationship or acts in a way that leaves no real choice but to resign.

See the Full Decision on the Fair Work Commission Website HERE