The February 2025 decision of the Fair Work Commission in Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd[1] has recently sparked headlines surrounding whether Australian employment laws extend to offshore workers. But should employers be concerned?
While the case is certainly interesting, in our view, it is not necessarily a sign that Australian employment law will automatically apply to overseas workers. Instead, it serves as a timely reminder to carefully assess how offshore workers are engaged.
Ms Pascua, a paralegal based in the Philippines, worked full-time for an Australian law firm operated by Doessel Group. After she was dismissed without warning during a Skype call, Ms Pascua brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Doessel Group in the Fair Work Commission.
Doessel Group raised a jurisdictional objection, asserting that Ms Pascua could not bring an unfair dismissal claim because she was an independent contractor, not an employee. However, the Commission dismissed the objection, finding that Ms Pascua was an employee covered by unfair dismissal laws. The decision was later upheld on appeal.[2]
In a separate decision, the Commission found that Ms Pascua had been unfairly dismissed and awarded her compensation in lieu of reinstatement.[3]
It is important to avoid sensationalist interpretations of the decision. The Commission focused solely on the specific working relationship between Ms Pascua and Doessel Group, and their conclusion was based on factors such as her fixed hours, close supervision, and exclusive service to the firm. Crucially, the Commission did not engage in a detailed analysis of geographical jurisdiction – that is, whether the Fair Work Act should apply to work performed entirely outside of Australia.
Because that issue was not fully tested (partly because the employer wasn’t legally represented and did not make submissions to that effect), the decision does not create a binding precedent for other offshore workers. Future cases could be decided differently, especially if employers raise proper jurisdictional arguments.
It’s also important to note that the Commission had to decide whether Ms Pascua was an employee only for the purposes of unfair dismissal. However, different tests apply to different entitlements under the Fair Work Act, such as superannuation, leave, and minimum wages. As such, even if a worker qualifies as an employee for one part of the Act, that does not necessarily mean they are covered for all purposes.
While the decision has prompted discussions about the potential for increased claims by offshore workers, such claims are unlikely for a few reasons:
Despite these barriers, the possibility exists for third-party litigation funders or class action firms to explore this area, particularly in industries with significant offshore workforces. Employers should remain vigilant and consider the implications of collective legal strategies in this context.
Even though this case does not set a strong precedent, it is still a good opportunity to check your offshore arrangements.
By taking these steps, employers can better manage the risks associated with offshore engagements and ensure that their practices align with current legal standards.
For further guidance on managing offshore employment arrangements, please contact our Employment Law & Investigations team at BAL Lawyers on 02 6274 0999.
[1] [2024] FWC 2669 (‘Pascua v Doessel’).
[2] Doessel Group Pty Ltd v Pascua [2025] FWCFB 43.
[3] [2025] FWC 1833.