Employer said worker 'had no emotions' and was 'arguing with her'
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with the case of a worker who argued she was unfairly dismissed from her job over a text message containing “no smiley face emoji.”
Despite the worker’s claim that she had no idea the message was upsetting for the employer, the latter still demanded that the worker be fired immediately, according to the FWC.
Outburst over text messages
The Commission said that Kristen Gordon had been employed by the business for over 14 months and was a casual, working full-time hours. It stated that part of Gordon’s duty included “rostering staff, time sheets, and generally helping the business to run smoothly.”
Based on the FWC’s records, the incident started when Phoebe Wang, who was supervising her ex-husband’s Sens and Goya cafes on Gold Coast, received a message from Gordon about a staffing issue.
The messages made Wang furious to the point that she “smashed her phone on the counter, jumped up and down while screaming at [the shop manager [that] she must ‘fire [the employee] immediately’,” the FWC said in a report published by News.com.au.
To understand why Wang acted in such a way, Gordon’s colleague, who witnessed Wang’s outburst, asked the latter to see the messages. Yet, the colleague found nothing but “normal messages” and told Wang she did not think Gordon meant anything wrong by them.
Nonetheless, Wang claimed that because the messages contained no emojis, Gordon was actually arguing with her and trying to be rude.
“Ms. Wang repeatedly stated that [Gordon] ‘didn’t add any smiley faces! There are no emotions!” the Commission revealed in the News.com.au report.
Meanwhile, Gordon told FWC that she was unaware that her “completely reasonable text messages had created so much upset” and believed that her dismissal was mainly based on Wang’s personal grudge towards the worker because they frequently had opposing ideas when it came to business matters.
After Wang’s continuous demand to fire Gordon immediately, the shop manager offered Gordon’s job to another colleague. It further said that the shop manager attempted to change Wang’s mind, yet, she was still forced to dismiss Gordon on a later day.
In its defence, the FWC said the employer submitted in its material before the court hearing that it offered Gordon two weeks of paid leave “in good faith” following her dismissal and that the worker agreed to return to work after her “annual leave.”
The FWC’s decision
Despite the attempts of the employer to make it appear that Gordon was not dismissed, the Commission believed otherwise and said the worker was “unfairly dismissed.”
“I am inclined to the view that Ms. Wang’s offer of additional payment to [Gordon] as a casual employee and a period of ‘paid leave’, and the potential offer of other future employment with another business at the end of that period of ‘leave’ were attempts to resolve the dispute about the earlier dismissal, rather than either an offer to rescind the termination or to attempt to maintain a purported ongoing casual employment relationship,” the FWC said.
In the case of Gordon’s text messages about a staffing issue, the Commission said that the worker was “merely trying to express a view as to what would be in the best interests of the business.”
“The evidence does not support a conclusion that [Gordon] refused to follow a lawful and reasonable direction, and there is nothing else to support a conclusion that her actions constituted a valid reason for dismissal,” the FWC said.
The Court ultimately ordered the employer to pay the worker the sum of $5,357.80 plus 9.5% superannuation on that amount paid into her nominated superannuation fund.
