An AI expert has lost an unfair dismissal case after alleging she was placed on a “sham” contract that allowed Infosys to avoid its employment obligations.

The Australia-based tech worker argued that, despite being contracted through a labour hire firm, Infosys was her actual employer.

She claimed the arrangement was designed to disguise the employment relationship and that she had ultimately been forced to resign.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) rejected the claim, finding that the arrangement was a standard three-way labour hire arrangement and that the worker could not bring an unfair dismissal case against Infosys.

FWC heard that the worker is highly qualified in data science, process mining research, event log engineering, process architecture and AI solution data engineering.

She was approached by an Infosys employee on LinkedIn about a role contributing to a service management process transformation project for Optus.

Because she was in Australia on a visa, Infosys was unable to employ her directly and instead engaged a third party to engage her as a subcontractor.

After signing the contract, she was provided with an Infosys email address and laptop and began working on the project.

She was later offered a full-time contract through a labour hire firm that included a sponsored visa.

However, disagreements arose over the payment of the visa fees.

‘Sham’ contract allegations

The worker eventually resigned in March 2025, giving two weeks’ notice.

In an email, she raised concerns about what she described as an “unfair” visa arrangement.

“I strongly believe it is important to stand up for my rights and advocate for workplace fairness, which is a fundamental value in Australian culture,” she said.

She then launched an unfair dismissal case against Infosys at the FWC, arguing that the multinational was her employer in reality.

She said her contract with the labour hire firm was a “sham” because she had been approached by Infosys, approved to work on an Infosys project, internally onboarded by the company and worked under its direction and supervision.

Infosys disputed the claim.

The company said the worker had raised a number of grievances about her visa and work arrangements, some of which it described as “wholly misplaced”.

It also argued that she was seeking to air those grievances at the commission “under the cover” of an unfair dismissal case.

A standard labour hire arrangement

FWC found that the worker’s contract with the labour hire firm was legally binding and enforceable.

It also found that she had been aware from the outset that she would be engaged as a subcontractor rather than an Infosys employee.

The commission found that the arrangement allowed Infosys to “inject and utilise suitably qualified and experienced individuals on its projects for a fixed term / s and for a fixed fee, absent the numerous administrative and legal obligations that come with direct employment”.

FWC deputy president Gerard Boyce said there was no basis in the facts and evidence before the commission to disregard the contract, as the worker had requested.

“I am not aware of any basis on the facts and evidence before me, to simply ignore the [contract] as the applicant requests that I do,” Boyce said.

He found that the arrangement was a standard subcontracting arrangement and that Infosys had no case to answer.