Trainee was arranging final assessment when owner sent termination text, FWC hears
A text message firing over unproven child safety allegations has cost a Sydney childcare operator more than $11,500 in a cautionary tale about shortcuts.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on February 4, 2026, that Edustellar Pty Ltd unfairly dismissed Victoria Russell after she worked just 10 months as a trainee at Bright Future Childcare Centre in Baulkham Hills.
Russell started her traineeship on November 7, 2024, working toward a Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care. When health problems surfaced during 2025, she tried to resign twice. Both times, Edustellar convinced her to stay. The company agreed to reduce her hours to 15 per week starting June 13, 2025.
Then on September 16, 2025, one of the owners, Ms Zhou, sent Russell a text message ending her employment. The message listed five serious concerns: reports from staff and parents about inappropriate interactions with children, observations of children expressing fear and distress in her care, concerns about workplace conduct including time away from children and use of inappropriate language, incomplete training requirements, and failure to complete the mandatory Child Protection course.
Russell wrote back asking for details. She was surprised by allegations she had never heard before and specifically requested information about the reports, observations, and incidents Zhou mentioned.
The problem was the evidence. The Commission found Edustellar provided written complaints about Russell's work, but these were "undated letters that made vague references to concerns about unspecified incidents reported by children to their parents and then raised with Edustellar." Deputy President Slevin noted "There was no investigation or assessment made to verify the allegations. It seems they were accepted at face value."
The training complaint also fell apart under scrutiny. Russell had actually completed the Child Protection certificate requirements except for one final practical observation. Two days before her dismissal, on September 14, 2025, she was arranging for her assessor to conduct that final observation.
The Commission found there was no valid reason for dismissal. Russell received no warning, no chance to explain, no discussion. Just a text message. The employer claimed it had given performance warnings, but Russell denied this and the company never provided proof of when or whether these warnings actually happened.
Deputy President Slevin called the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The decision pointed out that as a small business without dedicated HR support, procedural failures had harmed the process. But the ruling also emphasized that Russell was a trainee and Edustellar should have provided her with more support.
After her dismissal, Russell moved to Newcastle and picked up casual shifts at a kebab shop, earning $900. She wanted either her job back or compensation. Neither party wanted reinstatement, so the Commission ordered Edustellar to pay $10,320 in compensation plus $1,227.60 in superannuation, spread across fortnightly payments.
The decision sends a clear message to employers: serious allegations do not excuse skipping proper process. Taking complaints at face value, failing to investigate, giving no opportunity to respond, and firing someone by text will likely end badly no matter how legitimate the concerns seem at the time.
