Your Filipino Hire Works 5,000 km Away. Australian Law Can Still Follow the Contract Home.
Most employers treat distance as a legal firewall: the hire is in Cebu or Manila, the company is in Sydney, so surely Australian law can't reach across the gap. Two recent Fair Work rulings say it can — and the trigger can be as small as which inbox received a signed PDF. Here's how offshore workers reached into Australian law, and why an employer of record in the Philippines is the one structure that decides the question on purpose, instead of leaving it to a tribunal.
The assumption
"They work overseas, so our country's employment law simply can't touch the arrangement."
What happened
In 2025, workers based in New Zealand and the Philippines were both found to be within reach of Australian employment law.
The border you assumed was protecting you
"They're not in Australia" feels like a complete answer because, most of the time, location is a fair proxy for which laws apply. You hire someone in another country, you assume that country's rules govern, and you move on. It's intuitive, and it's usually close enough to be useful.
The trouble is that employment law doesn't always follow the worker's chair. In Australia, the question isn't only "where is this person sitting?" — it's "is this an Australian-based employee of an Australian employer?" And that can be answered yes for someone who has never set foot in the country.
Two rulings, one mechanism
In Sanderson v Brightest, a salesperson based in New Zealand was dismissed by text message. He brought an unfair dismissal claim in Australia, and the employer argued the Commission had no jurisdiction over a worker who lived and worked across the Tasman. The Commission disagreed: his signed acceptance of the role had been received in Victoria, so the contract was formed in Australia, which made him an "Australian-based employee." He won a remedy of two weeks' gross pay (David Sanderson v Brightest Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1633).
In Pascua v Doessel, the same reach question surfaced for a Philippines-based worker already found to be an employee. Here the law turns on a specific carve-out — broadly, whether she was both engaged outside Australia and engaged to work outside Australia. On that point the Full Bench did not reach a final answer: the evidence was incomplete, so the question was left open. The honest takeaway isn't that Australian law blankets every offshore worker — it's that whether it reaches a given one can hinge on small, contestable facts. We cover the classification side of Pascua in independent contractor vs employee philippines.
How a contract gets "formed in Australia" by accident
Contract formation is simpler than it sounds: one side makes an offer, the other accepts, and a contract exists at the point acceptance is communicated. When acceptance is sent by email — a signed PDF returned to the employer — a line of Australian authority (Munjoma, Winter) and the Electronic Transactions Act generally treat it as effective where it is received.
For an offshore hire, that receiving inbox is usually the company's office in Australia. So the contract can be "formed in Australia" without anyone intending it — a quiet by-product of how the signed document travelled.
How it happens
You email the signed offer to your hire overseas.
They sign and email the accepted contract back.
It lands in your Australian inbox — where the contract is taken to be formed.
The uncomfortable part: it can come down to which inbox received the PDF.
Why this is a planning problem, not a paperwork problem
You can't redraft your way out of this reliably. When you engage a Filipino worker directly, the connecting facts — where acceptance was received, where duties are performed, how the relationship reads — are exactly the things a tribunal weighs after a dispute. The exposure sits on your books unpriced, invisible right up until someone is dismissed and decides to test it.
The savings from offshore hiring are real and easy to model. The legal exposure is the variable you can't model. One of those you can actually fix — by choosing the structure rather than discovering it.
An employer of record in the Philippines settles the choice of law by design
An employer of record removes the guesswork because it changes who the employer is. The EOR is a Philippine company; under the Fair Work Act's definitions it isn't an "Australian employer," so the chain that pulled the worker under the Act in Sanderson never forms. Your hire is employed locally under Philippine law, and you engage the EOR as a client rather than as the employer.
That isn't a loophole — it's choosing the correct, compliant structure up front instead of leaving the choice of law to a tribunal after a dispute. It's also one of three ways to build a Filipino team, which we compare in full in our guide to employer of record Philippines vs contractor vs your own entity.
Decide which law applies — on purpose
Tell us the role and we'll show you how an EOR structures it cleanly under Philippine law. If it fits, you'll have a proposal within 24 hours.
Frequently asked questions
Does the Fair Work Act apply to employees who work outside Australia?
It can. The Act reaches an "Australian-based employee" of an "Australian employer," and a worker employed by an Australian company can fall inside that definition even when located overseas — unless they were both engaged outside Australia and engaged to work outside Australia.
What does "where the contract was formed" actually mean?
Generally, the place where acceptance of the offer was communicated. Where a signed contract is returned by email, the formation point is usually treated as where that email was received — often the employer's office in Australia.
Can a worker in New Zealand or the Philippines file an unfair dismissal claim in Australia?
Yes, if the connecting tests are met. In Sanderson the NZ-based worker did exactly that and was awarded a remedy. In Pascua the same reach question was identified but not finally decided.
How does an employer of record in the Philippines change which country's law applies?
The EOR employs the worker locally under Philippine law, so Philippine employment law governs and the foreign company engages the EOR as a client rather than as the employer.
Is using an EOR a loophole?
No. It is choosing the correct, compliant employment structure up front instead of leaving the question to a tribunal after a dispute.
General information, not legal advice. For your situation, get advice from a qualified Philippine or Australian employment lawyer. Primary sources for Pascua: [2024] FWC 2669 and [2025] FWC 1833; appeal refused in [2025] FWCFB 43. Sanderson facts from David Sanderson v Brightest Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1633. Last updated 23 June 2026.
