Pieter Jansen v Sodexo Remote Sites Australia Pty Limited - [2025] FWC 707

1 

 

Fair Work Act 2009  

s 394—Unfair dismissal 

Pieter Jansen 

v 

Sodexo Remote Sites Australia Pty Limited 
(U2024/11441) 

COMMISSIONER LIM PERTH, 11 MARCH 2025 

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – whether applicant is a person protected from 
unfair dismissal – employment commencement date determined – minimum employment 
period met – protected from unfair dismissal. 

 

1. What is this decision about? 
 

[1] Mr Pieter Jansen has applied to the Commission alleging that Sodexo Remote Sites 

Australia Pty Limited dismissed him unfairly. Sodexo says that Mr Jansen has not completed 

the minimum employment period and is therefore not protected from unfair dismissal.   

 

[2] Sodexo is not a small business employer and dismissed Mr Jansen on Wednesday 4 

September 2024. This means for Mr Jansen to be protected from unfair dismissal under s 382 

of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), he must have been employed on or before Monday 4 March 

2024. Sodexo says that Mr Jansen commenced his employment with them on Wednesday 6 

March 2024. Mr Jansen says his employment commenced on Wednesday 28 February 2024.  

 

[3] I conducted a hearing on Wednesday 18 December 2024. I granted permission for Mr 

Patrick Mullally to represent Mr Jansen and for Mr Joseph Creese of Mills Oakley to represent 

Sodexo. Mr Jansen gave evidence in support of his case. Ms Sarah Richards (Talent Acquisition 

Consultant) and Mr Shaun Gibson (Regional Manager, Facilities Maintenance, Upper East 

Pilbara) gave evidence for Sodexo.  

 

[4] Having considered the relevant evidence and submissions of the parties, I find that Mr 

Jansen’s employment commenced on Wednesday 28 February 2024. He had served the 

minimum employment period and was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of his 

dismissal.  

 

[5] My detailed reasons follow. 

 

[2025] FWC 707 

DECISION 


AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission




 



[2025] FWC 707 

 

2 

2. How did Mr Jansen’s employment with Sodexo commence? 
 

[6] Mr Jansen previously worked for Sodexo from April 2019 to July 2022. In early 2024, 

Mr Jansen reached out to Mr Gibsonto ask if there were any Fly-In, Fly-Out roles available. 

Mr Gibson asked Mr Jansen to send in his resume and offered him a position as a FM 

Supervisor. Mr Gibson and Mr Jansen agreed that Mr Jansen would start on Wednesday 28 

February 2024.  

 

[7] Originally, the plan was for Mr Jansen to be the supervisor for the ‘A-Swing’, with 

another supervisor on the ‘B-Swing’, on an ‘eight days on, six days off’ roster.  

 

[8] Approximately one week before Mr Jansen was due to be mobilised to site, Mr Gibson 

asked him if he could change to the B-Swing as the other supervisor had resigned. This meant 

that Mr Jansen would have been flying out to site on Wednesday 6 March 2024 rather than 

Wednesday 28 February 2024. Mr Jansen agreed to this.  

 

[9] On Thursday 22 February 2024, Mr Jansen was informed that he had been booked to 

attend Aveling Fire Training on Wednesday 28 February 2024, and Sodexo Onboarding 

Training on Thursday 29 February 2024 from 7:30am to 3:30pm. 

 

[10] While Mr Jansen was attending the Sodexo Onboarding Training, Ms Richards called 

him. Mr Jansen’s account is that Ms Richards said that his start date would be Wednesday 6 

March 2024. Mr Jansen told Ms Richards that his start date was Wednesday 28 February 2024 

as per his agreement with Mr Gibson. Mr Jansen further said that he would be starting his 

employment during his R&R cycle, and not on site. 

 

[11] Ms Richards’ recollection is that she called Mr Jansen to advise that she was requesting 

his employment contract with a start date of Wednesday 6 March 2024. Ms Richards’ evidence 

is that this was an ordinary conversation updating an employee regarding the status of their 

contract and she could not recall Mr Jansen raising concerns about his start date.1 

 

[12] On Thursday 29 February 2024, Ms Richards sent Mr Jansen a Docusign copy of his 

contract of employment. Mr Jansen signed it that day. The contract specified a start date of 

Wednesday 6 March 2024. Mr Jansen’s evidence is that he did not notice the start date when 

he signed it.  

 

[13] On Saturday 4 May 2024, Mr Jansen sent the following email to Mr Gibson:2 

 
“Hi [Shaun], 

 

As discussed with you last month, my agreed starting date was 28/02/2024. This was going to 

be my first swing but due to Sodexo operational requirements with [other supervisor] resigning 

I was asked to do a swing change. This however did not change my starting date with the 

company and just meant that I would start on my R&R cycle. When I was called by Sarah 

Richards and she asked what my starting date was I told her 28/02. She told me that I don’t get 

paid for R&R and that my starting date will be 06/03…so I left it there. When I received my 

pay for March I received $6,832.34 net. This pay was the correct pay at 8,306.26 net.  

 

Subsequently I also lost out on super and AL accumulation on the first pay cycle.  








[2025] FWC 707 

 

3 

 

Your help to correct this is appreciated. 

 

Thank you, 

 

Kind regards 

 

Pieter” 

 

[14] Mr Gibson forwarded Mr Jansen’s email with the comment, “Hi Phil, Can you please 

assist with next steps to resolve this. It was my request to alter start date. This has impacted 

Pieter financially. Thanks, Shaun”. 

 

[15] Mr Jansen was subsequently paid two full days’ wages.  

 

3. Submissions  
 

3.1 Mr Jansen 

 

[16] Mr Jansen submits that although there is a comprehensive written contract between the 

parties, there was also an oral contract made between the parties. Mr Jansen relies on the Full 

Court of the Federal Court’s recent decision in EFEX Group Pty Ltd v Bennett,3 specifically at 

[9] where the Full Court stated that “…the terms of an oral contract may be able to be inferred 

from the circumstances, including in whole or in part from the parties conduct or course of 

dealing between them, or implied where necessary for business efficacy…” 

 

[17] Mr Jansen submits that the evidence supports a finding that there was an oral 

employment contract, or oral term of the employment contract that Mr Jansen’s employment 

started on Wednesday 28 February 2024. 

 

3.2 Sodexo 

 

[18] Mr Gibson’s and Ms Richards’ evidence is that Wednesday 28 February 2024 was a 

‘target’ start date for Mr Jansen. Sodexo submits that Mr Jansen’s actual commencement date 

was subject to Mr Jansen completing all required pre-employment checks, satisfying training 

requirements and the issuing of a final offer of employment with his terms and conditions.  

 

[19] Sodexo submits that following the B-Swing supervisor’s resignation, Mr Gibson never 

informed Mr Jansen that his start date would remain Wednesday 28 February 2024 or that he 

would commence employment during his R&R period. Sodexo further submits that the Aveling 

Fire Training and Sodexo Induction were attended “pre-employment”, and that it paid for Mr 

Jansen to attend these as a gesture of goodwill.4 

 

[20] Sodexo makes the following submissions regarding the written contract of employment: 

 

• Schedule A of Mr Jansen’s employment contract explicitly outlines a commencement 

date of Wednesday 6 March 2024.5 

 








[2025] FWC 707 

 

4 

• Clause 27 of the contract (Entire Understanding) provides that the contract, “contains 

the entire understanding between the parties concerning the subject matter of the 

contract and supersedes all prior communications between the parties”. Further, that, 

“except as expressly stated in this Contract, [each] party has not relied on any 

representation, warranty or undertaking of any kind made by or on behalf of another 

party in relation to the subject matter of this Contract”.6 

 

• The parol evidence rule of contractual interpretation indicates that Clause 27 represents 

the entirety of the bargain struck between the parties in relation to Mr Jansen’s 

employment. 

 

4. Consideration – what was Mr Jansen’s start date? 
 

[21] Sodexo states that the plurality in EFEX found that in circumstances where parties have 

comprehensively committed to a written contract, the obligations established by that contract 

are decisive. This misunderstands the decision; the plurality found that the obligations 

established by a written contract are decisive of the character of the legal relationship.7 

 

[22] In this matter, there is no contest that the legal relationship between Mr Jansen and 

Sodexo was one of employer and employee. What is in contest is when the legal relationship 

started.  

 

[23] I find that that in addition to the written employment contract entered into on Thursday 

29 February 2024, Mr Jansen and Sodexo had an agreement to commence his employment with 

Sodexo on Wednesday 28 February 2024. I rely on the following in reaching this decision: 

 

(a) Mr Jansen’s and Mr Gibson’s evidence that Mr Jansen was to mobilise to site for a 

Wednesday 28 February 2024 start. 

 

(b) Sodexo directed Mr Jansen to attend the Aveling Fire Training and Sodexo Induction 

on Wednesday 28 and Thursday 29 February 2024 when his site mobilisation date 

changed. 

 

(c) Sodexo paid Mr Jansen for his attendance at the Aveling Fire Training and Sodexo 

Induction. 

 

(d) The Aveling Fire Training and Sodexo Induction did not take place “pre-employment”. 

Mr Jansen’s written employment contract details “pre-employment checks and requisite 

licences, authorisations and qualifications” as well as “pre-mobilisation briefing” 

requirements.8 Neither the Aveling Fire Training nor the Sodexo Induction are listed 

under these categories. 

 

[24] I find that Clause 27 of the contract cannot negate that Mr Jansen had commenced work 

at an earlier date. It is simply not sensible to suggest that where a contract specifies a different 

employment start date to what occurred, that another term of that contract can wipe that reality 

out.   

 








[2025] FWC 707 

 

5 

[25] It follows that Mr Jansen has served the minimum employment period. He was protected 

from unfair dismissal at the time he was dismissed. The matter will now be programmed to 

determine the merits of Mr Jansen’s application.  

 

 
 

COMMISSIONER 

 
Appearances: 
 
P Mullally of Workclaims Australia for the Applicant. 
J Creese of Counsel for the Respondent. 
 
Hearing details: 
 

2024. 

Perth: 

18 December. 

 

 

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer 

 

PR785128 

 

 

 
1 Digital Court Book (DCB) 152 [12].  

2 Ibid 60-61.  

3 [2024] FCAFC 25. 

4 DCB (n 1) 109 [22]-[23].  

5 Ibid 36. 

6 Ibid 33. 

7 CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1, [43]-[44], per Kiefel CJ, Keane and Edelman JJ; [183], per 

Gordon J.  

8 DCB (n 1) 148.  


FAIR WORK COMMISSION HE SEAL OF THE

Cases cited by this decision: