Could your workplace terminology be causing dangerous confusion?
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case where a worker believed she had been dismissed after receiving an email about "offboarding" from her workplace assignment.
The worker had requested time off to travel overseas for personal reasons, only to receive a concerning response from her employer that led her to believe her employment had ended.
The worker argued that several factors contributed to her belief she had been dismissed: the employer's email stating they would "proceed with your offboarding," instructions to return her workplace ID, the withholding of her salary, and the lack of clear communication about her employment status or future work opportunities.
The case raised important questions about what constitutes a dismissal under Australian employment law, how clearly employers must communicate changes in work assignments, and whether security-related actions can be distinguished from employment termination.
The worker started her job with a recruitment company serving the aviation industry in May 2022. She worked as a catering attendant with the employer's client, Dnata, at Sydney Airport's tarmac facility where she had access to secure kitchen areas.
On 16 February 2025, the worker emailed her employer stating she needed to fly to Dubai for personal reasons and would be unavailable until 28 February 2025. This notification came after the employer had already assigned her shifts for 17-19 February.
Two days later, the employer responded: "This is not sufficient notice. After careful consideration, we have decided to proceed with your offboarding. Please return your Dnata ID to the Blue Collar New Office, as this will impact your final pay." The email added: "Please hold pay until the staff is cleared."
Both parties agreed the "offboarding" referred only to removing the worker from Dnata's system. The FWC noted: "I accept that it is the policy of both Dnata and [the employer] to take swift action and offboard an employee from Dnata systems if they are going overseas on short notice."
The worker filed her application with the FWC on 18 February 2025, the same day she received the "offboarding" email. In her submission, she stated that "Given the sequence of events, the message that she was being offboarded, the withholding of her salary, and the absence of further formal communication about continued employment, [the worker] had every reason to believe that she had been dismissed."
She understood returning her Dnata ID was necessary but argued that withholding her salary until this happened was unfair. This combination of factors gave her reasonable grounds to believe her employment had ended.
The worker claimed the employer only contacted her after becoming aware she had filed a complaint. This timing suggested these contact attempts were reactions to her legal action rather than genuine offers of continued employment.
The definition of "dismissed" under section 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009 became central to the case, with the worker relying on subsection (1)(a), which states a person has been dismissed if "the person's employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer's initiative."
The employer maintained they never terminated the worker's employment and there was no evidence to support her claim that employment ended at their initiative.
They stated they tried to contact the worker multiple times after her return to discuss a position with another aviation catering company, Gate Gourmet. The employer pointed to communication attempts before and on 7 March 2025 as evidence of their intent to continue the employment relationship.
The employer explained they didn't contact her during leave because "they did not want to disturb her while she was taking leave." They also noted that no formal termination letter was ever provided.
The FWC observed that because the worker filed her application immediately, "there was no opportunity for [the employer] to advance to [the worker] alternative placement opportunities prior to the Application being commenced."
The FWC addressed how terminology could cause misunderstanding: "While the use of the curious term 'offboarding' may render superficially attractive a submission that a dismissal has occurred, such a simplistic approach does not consider the industry specific facts in this matter, that importantly were not in dispute between the parties."
The decision explained that due to security requirements, "[the worker] needed to be swiftly offboarded from the Dnata system when going overseas on short notice."
The FWC found the employer didn't contact the worker during leave because "it did not want to interrupt her leave" and that "Shortly after her return from leave, and both before and on 7 March 2025, [the employer] sought to advance to [the worker] alternative placement opportunities."
Based on these findings, the FWC concluded: "For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that [the worker] was not dismissed by [the employer]." As a result, the application was dismissed as the worker "could not apply for relief under Sub-division A of Part 3-1 of the Act."
The case shows the importance of clear workplace communication, particularly in industries with security protocols that require temporary removal from client systems without affecting overall employment status.
