When “platform work” meets unfair dismissal law: the Dawe decision - Didn’t see that coming

In Dawe v Psychic TV Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2794, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) considered an application for an unfair dismissal remedy brought by a worker who delivered psychic-reading services via an online platform. The central issue was whether Mr Dawe was an “employee” (so that he could be dismissed) or an independent contractor (in which case he cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim). The Commission held he was an independent contractor, and dismissed his application.

This decision is especially interesting in the context of gig-economy / platform work, where often there is ambiguity about the true nature of the relationship between a worker and the platform. Below is a plain-language breakdown of the facts, the legal reasoning, and lessons for workers and organisations.

Background: who, what, when

• Psychic TV Pty Ltd operates an online “platform” through which customers can contact “psychic readers.” The platform handles the payment, times the calls, transfers the call to the chosen reader, etc.

• Mr Dawe was one of the readers on that platform from about November 2021 until April 2025.

• There was no written contract between Mr Dawe and Psychic TV.

• The working arrangement was roughly:

  
  

  • Mr Dawe was given log-in access (via a code) to the site and an associated telephone number to receive clients.

  • He was required to be “logged in” to the system for a minimum of 3 hours per week (but at times of his choice).

  • When calls came in, they were timed by the platform, and Mr Dawe was paid only for the minutes of the call (not for “idle” logged-in time).

  • He was not paid for leave, public holidays, or superannuation, and there was no tax withholding.

  • Over his entire engagement, the total earnings were modest (approximately AU$1,000 across the full period), and in the 12 months before April 2025, only AU$25.

• In April 2025, Psychic TV withdrew Mr Dawe’s access to the platform, and later told him his services were no longer required.

• Mr Dawe applied under section 394 of the Fair Work Act (Cth) for an unfair dismissal remedy. Psychic TV objected, saying Mr Dawe was not an employee (so could not be “dismissed” for unfair dismissal purposes).

Legal framework & test

Who is an “employee”?

Under the Fair Work Act, an application for unfair dismissal is only available to someone who has been “dismissed” from employment.  The first hurdle is: is the person even an employee?

The case turned largely on section 15AA, a provision inserted in 2024, which deals with determining what “employee / employer” means in the “ordinary meaning” under the Act. That is, even if there is a contract labelled “contractor,” one must look to the real, practical nature of the relationship.

Section 15AA requires examination of the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the relationship, looking at the total circumstances: the contract terms, but also how things actually worked in practice.

Legal tests from prior cases remain relevant — the “multifactorial” approach — considering indicia such as:

• the degree of control the operator had over the worker,

• how the worker is paid (by time, piece, commission, etc),

• whether the worker provides their own tools,

• whether the worker can work for others,

• whether the worker can delegate or subcontract,

• whether the worker appears as part of the business or as a separate enterprise, etc.

Because Mr Dawe’s relationship began before the commencement of s. 15AA, section 15AA applies as the transitional test.

Was Mr Dawe dismissed?

Even if he had been an employee, the question would be whether the withdrawal of platform access amounted to a dismissal under section 386(1) of the Act. But the Commission ultimately did not need to reach detailed arguments on that, because it found Mr Dawe was not an employee.

Decision & reasoning

Independent contractor, not employee

The Deputy President (Roberts) concluded that Mr Dawe was an independent contractor, not an employee, and therefore was not in a position to be dismissed under the Act.

Some key reasons:

• Psychic TV exerted very little control over how Mr Dawe performed his work, or where he did it. Mr Dawe chose when to log in (apart from the 3-hour minimum) and when not to.

• The content of his interactions with clients was not tightly controlled by Psychic TV (beyond perhaps a general instruction about not presenting as an “expert”).

• He used his own equipment (telephone, etc). Psychic TV did not provide or mandate provision of the tools to do the job.

• His income was directly tied to the calls he actually took; the platform monitored call duration. He was not paid for mere availability (except for the minimal login requirement) or as an ongoing wage.

• He also undertook similar work via other platforms or channels, which suggests he was operating his own enterprise.

• Although to the public it might appear that he is part of Psychic TV’s offering (because the platform channels customers to him), that façade does not override stronger indicia pointing to independent contractor status.

Because the Commission found that in the “totality of the relationship” the independent contractor character was dominant, the objection by Psychic TV succeeded and Mr Dawe’s unfair dismissal application was dismissed.

When “platform work” meets unfair dismissal law: the Dawe decision

Why this case matters

1. Platform and gig work under scrutiny

   
   

   The case illustrates that working through an online platform does not automatically make someone an employee. The structure, practical control, payment method, and other indicia still matter.

   
   

2. Section 15AA’s role

   
   

   The decision is one of the early applications of section 15AA, reinforcing that courts and tribunals must look beyond labels and consider how a working relationship actually functions.

   
   

3. Lessons for platform workers

   
   

   • Even if your work is mediated by a platform, whether you are an employee or contractor depends on substance, not labels.

   • If you want protection under employment law (like unfair dismissal, leave, superannuation etc.), clarity about your status is critical.

   • If you’re uncertain of your status, or platform conditions change (e.g. new rules, reduced control), it may be worth seeking advice or review.

   
   

4. Caution for platforms and businesses

   
   

   • Relying on a “contractor” label will not necessarily shield a business from liability if the relationship in practice resembles employment.

   • To minimise risk, platforms should ensure their actual operational practices align with the contractor model (control, autonomy, no direction over method, capacity to work elsewhere, etc).

   • Platforms should regularly reassess whether their model might unintentionally cross into employment territory.

Potential critiques or caveats

• The evidence in this matter was somewhat limited (no written contract and scant documentation).  That means the decision leans more heavily on how things were said to have worked in practice.

• The minimal 3-hour login requirement is interesting: some level of “availability requirement” was imposed, but the Commission treated it as modest compared to the other factors.

• Earnings were very low, which might reinforce the notion of an ancillary or side enterprise rather than full reliance on the arrangement.

What’s next for workers and the law

This decision may not settle how all platform work will be treated, but it provides guidance. As more litigation arises in the gig economy, we may see more refined distinctions and perhaps statutory responses.

For workers using platforms, it is essential to document how the arrangement actually works (who controls what, where, when, how) and to question whether purported “independent contractor” labels truly match reality.

If you come across a platform arrangement you suspect is borderline, feel free to reach out (for non-legal support and advocacy). We can help you understand which factors to examine and how to assess your rights under Fair Work law.