The Commission found the worker's own actions undermined her dismissal claim
Removing an employee from a WhatsApp group and changing their system password is not a dismissal, the Fair Work Commission has ruled.
In a decision handed down on 20 March 2026, Deputy President Masson dismissed an unfair dismissal application by Elizabeth Reardon against her employer, Olga De Polga Pty Ltd, finding that no dismissal had occurred and that, even if one had, no extension of time to file would have been granted.
Reardon, who had been employed since 9 July 2024, attempted to access her work email on 14 November 2025 while on medical leave, only to find she had been locked out of the company's systems and removed from its staff WhatsApp group. She took those events as her dismissal.
Her employment status was itself contested. Reardon said she was a full-time Marketing Manager without a written contract. Director Olga Stone said she was a casual Marketing Assistant earning $45 per hour. The Commission accepted the casual characterisation, citing fluctuating hours and no paid leave. A formal annual leave application had also been rejected.
Reardon had obtained a medical certificate on 5 November 2025 certifying her unfit for work from 6 to 13 November 2025 due to "Acute stress reaction and emotional distress secondary to workplace bullying and harassment, likely related to age discrimination." She nonetheless performed work on 7 and 8 November 2025 and did not provide the certificate to her employer until 17 November 2025.
On 8 November 2025, Stone emailed Reardon proposing her working week be cut from five to four days with changes to her duties. Reardon accepted on 11 November 2025. A phone call that same day became heavily disputed. Stone denied dismissing Reardon or telling her not to return. Under cross-examination, Reardon conceded she was told neither of those things. General Manager Luka Ruiz Stone, who was in Stone's office, confirmed the call ended at Reardon's initiative.
On the access question, the evidence did not support Reardon's account. A screenshot taken on 26 November 2025 showed her password had been changed on 17 November 2025, consistent with what Stone described as a standard periodic security update. Stone said the WhatsApp group was for sales and warehouse staff only. The Commission accepted the password explanation but was less convinced on the WhatsApp point.
Reardon lodged a WorkCover claim on 17 November 2025 citing severe anxiety from a 29 October 2025 workplace incident involving Stone's son. That claim was rejected on 16 December 2025. Her unfair dismissal application followed two days later, thirteen days outside the statutory 21 day filing window.
The Commission was direct: "Both the Applicant and Ms Stone are deserving of criticism for their communication failures." It noted the employer should have contacted Reardon to check on her welfare regardless of the WorkCover claim.
No termination had been communicated to Reardon, verbally or in writing. Her decision to lodge a WorkCover claim and furnish medical certificates on 17 November 2025 without raising her employment status strongly suggested she knew she remained employed. The Commission observed that "the timing of the application is not merely coincidental in my view."
On the alternative question of whether an extension of time should be granted under s 394(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Commission found no exceptional circumstances. Two factors weighed against Reardon: her medical evidence was undermined by her demonstrated capacity to complete the WorkCover claim during the same period she claimed incapacity, and she had been aware of her alleged dismissal from 14 November 2025, giving her the full 21 days to file. The remaining four factors were neutral: the action taken to dispute the dismissal, prejudice to the employer, the merits of the application, and fairness between persons in a similar position.
The Commission also noted emails Reardon sent to supplier Digital Six advertising on 21 and 22 October 2025 that appeared highly critical of the business and to disclose confidential information. Such conduct, if established, may constitute misconduct justifying dismissal, though no formal finding was made.
This case carries two lessons. System deprovisioning and messaging group removals during leave can create genuine ambiguity around employment status, particularly where no formal communication accompanies those steps. Documented communication with employees remains essential, even when constrained by legal advice.
