The decision in Alistair v Brisbane City Council (No 2) [2025] QIRC 139 provides important clarification regarding the definition of the phrase “engaged for a specific period or task” under the Queensland unfair dismissal regime. The case highlights a significant jurisdictional limitation for Queensland state and local government employees seeking relief for unfair dismissal before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC).
The Queensland state industrial relations system is governed by the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (IR Act) and applies to Queensland state government and local government employees. Employees within this system must bring employment law applications before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which has the authority to deal with dismissal-related claims.
Under section 315(d) of the IR Act, it is a jurisdictional limitation that a Queensland state or local government employee who is “engaged for a specific period or task” cannot make a dismissal-related application under the QIRC, with the following two exceptions:
a. where the main purpose of engaging the employee on that basis was to avoid the employer’s unfair dismissal obligations; or
b. where the employee is participating in a labour market program and is dismissed before the period ends or the task is completed.
If neither of the above exceptions applies, the employee will not be eligible to make a dismissal-related application under the QIRC due to this jurisdictional limitation.
In the present case, the key issue addressed by the Commission was whether the applicant’s employment fell within the meaning of “specific period or task” for the purposes of section 315 of the IR Act.
Generally, an employee engaged for a specific period or task refers to an employee who is not employed permanently.
The position adopted by the QIRC in Alistair has considered the decisions in Alouani-Roby v National Rugby League Ltd (2024) 307 FCR 65 and adopted a broader interpretation when interpreting the phrase “specific period or task”, where the Commission departed from earlier authorities that required greater certainty as to the end date of employment and accepted that an engagement for a “specific period” may include what has been described as an “outer limit contract”, that is, a contract expressed to run for a nominated or nominal period but which allows for earlier termination under the terms of the contract. This approach recognises that a contract may still be considered as one for a specific period even where it contains mechanisms permitting the employment to end before the nominal expiry date.
A “labour market program” is a program approved by the Minister that ordinarily deals with the policies regarding the supply and demand of labour at a systemic level. It is differentiated from a traineeship as a traineeship is employment-based training; Alouani-Roby v National Rugby League Ltd (2024) 307 FCR 65 [52].
It is common practice for Queensland state or local governments to employ temporary employees, whether for the purpose of budgetary control, funding structures, project-based work, or to fill skill shortages and provide flexibility. Queensland state or local government employees need to be aware of the jurisdictional limitations in the IR Act. Notwithstanding that employees may have been employed for a long period on the basis of repeated fixed-term contract renewals, they are likely, as of the latest decisions as of the date of this article, to still be subject to these jurisdictional limitations with respect to their eligibility to make a dismissal-related application in the QIRC.
The case of Alistair therefore serves as an important reminder that the jurisdictional limitations in the IR Act can significantly limit the availability of dismissal-related remedies for Queensland public sector employees who are employed on fixed-term or temporary bases.
To speak with one of our lawyers today, call us on 1300 088 440
"*" indicates required fields
