The court found the manager was "out of her depth" handling the situation
A pregnant employee was quietly offboarded without her knowledge. Her employer said she resigned. A court disagreed, but still dismissed her claims.
On 23 March 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed an application brought by Alyssa Silcock against Burger Urge Pty Ltd, a Queensland-based burger chain. The case raised pointed questions about informal leave arrangements, manager training and the legal weight of offboarding documentation.
Silcock began work as a part-time crew member at the company's Forster, New South Wales store on 20 May 2024, already five months pregnant. With less than 12 months of service, she had no statutory entitlement to unpaid parental leave under the Fair Work Act. What followed was a series of informal conversations with Jaime Grant, then the store's assistant manager and later its store manager from 17 July 2024, about taking around six months off to have her baby. Silcock believed an arrangement had been agreed. Grant processed her departure as a resignation.
The court accepted Silcock's account, finding she had not resigned. Her employment was terminated on 2 September 2024 when Grant completed an employee offboarding checklist recording her as having resigned. Silcock had never seen the document, let alone signed it. Grant admitted she had made the pen mark in the signature block herself.
Silcock, who represented herself throughout the proceedings, pursued several claims under the Fair Work Act. She alleged she was dismissed because of her pregnancy and family responsibilities, in breach of the Act's anti-discrimination provisions. She also claimed she was dismissed for exercising a workplace right, specifically her right to seek time off related to childbirth and caring responsibilities. The court rejected that claim, finding that because Silcock had less than 12 months of service, she had no statutory entitlement to unpaid parental leave and had therefore not exercised a "workplace right" as defined under the Act. She further alleged the respondent made false or misleading representations about her workplace rights. The court found this claim also failed, because the leave Silcock had been granted was discretionary, not a statutory entitlement, and therefore did not constitute a "workplace right" for the purposes of the provision. A fourth claim, relating to unlawful termination grounds under section 772, was found to be procedurally incompetent; while the Fair Work Commission had issued a certificate in relation to the broader dispute, it was not the specific certificate required under section 776(3)(a) for that particular claim.
On the central discrimination claim under section 351, the court found the reverse onus presumption in section 361 of the Act was engaged, meaning the burden fell on the respondent to prove its dismissal of Silcock was not motivated by her pregnancy or family responsibilities. The court ultimately accepted the respondent had discharged that burden, finding that the dismissal was not so motivated. Of Grant, Judge Doust found that "she was out of her depth and did not comprehend what the applicant was seeking or how to give effect to that request." Grant had only commenced in the store manager role on 17 July 2024, weeks before the situation arose. The operations manager, Nathan Olsson, had advised Grant to ask Silcock what she wanted to do and "go from there with her response," guidance the court described as unhelpful.
The surrounding evidence told a warmer story. Grant had organised a congratulations card and meal vouchers for Silcock on behalf of the team. In a text message on 15 August 2024, Grant wrote: "I'll see you in 6 months hopefully." Her own email to the company's HR Business Partner described Silcock as "leaving us at the end of the month, for some time off to have her baby." The court found no evidence of discriminatory intent.
A notable incident emerged during the hearing. HR Business Partner Yolanda Vilaplana was found to have exchanged text messages with the company's solicitor while giving evidence, asking how she was performing as a witness and suggesting she had claimed ignorance of matters she in fact knew. The court found this did not affect the outcome, as there was nothing to suggest Vilaplana had played a role in the conduct that constituted the relevant adverse action.
All of Silcock's claims were dismissed. The court noted the employer's handling of the matter "left a great deal to be desired" and that Silcock's sense of having been "ill-treated and betrayed" was "entirely justified."
The court's findings raise several practical considerations. Burger Urge's leave policy made no provision for leave without pay, and the company's electronic leave system could only process requests one day at a time, making a six-month application effectively unworkable. Line managers received no clear guidance on how to handle extended leave requests from employees who lacked statutory entitlements. Offboarding documentation was completed without the employee's involvement, rendering it unreliable as evidence. The case illustrates that informal workplace understandings, however warmly intended, carry real legal risk when they are not supported by clear policy and process.
