No termination letter, no meeting, but the Commission found a dismissal anyway
An unpaid worker locked out of his employer's systems has been awarded compensation after the Fair Work Commission found the conduct amounted to dismissal.
The worker had been employed by Adelaide-based Coherics Pty Ltd, first as a casual in August 2024 before moving into a permanent, full-time business manager role in March 2025. He later accepted a fixed-term contract from July 2025 through to June 2026.
The trouble started in September 2025, when salary payments stopped arriving in full - or at all. By late October, the worker told his employer he was overdrawn, living on credit, and unable to cover basic expenses.
He raised the issue apologetically. "I'm genuinely struggling now," he emailed the company's director on October 29, 2025. "I'm pretty much at the point where I can't cover basic costs."
Even so, he kept working. He stayed on to help the director prepare a presentation ahead of a business trip to Japan.
On November 26, 2025 - the day before the director flew out - the worker arrived at the office to find the power had been disconnected. He checked the rest of the building. The outage was confined to Coherics' suite. A disconnection notice dated November 24 had been posted at the premises.
The director told the Commission the disconnection was the result of a payment sent to the wrong company. He also conceded, however, that to his knowledge the power was never reconnected.
With no wages and no functioning office, the worker emailed his employer on November 27 to say he was pausing duties until the arrears were resolved. He was careful to frame it: "To be clear, this is not leave; it is a pause in duties directly caused by unpaid wages."
A series of emails followed over the next few days. The director acknowledged the pay issues but pushed back on the worker's decision to down tools, writing that the timing had "caused unnecessary chaos" while he was in Japan. He also reminded the worker of the training and flexibility the company had provided: "while the pay issues are real, I think it's fair to acknowledge you've had a very accommodating and supportive environment."
The worker's position did not shift. He repeatedly confirmed he had not resigned and would return once all outstanding wages were paid.
On December 3, the director cancelled a scheduled meeting and wrote: "I can't keep a role open indefinitely without duties being performed." The worker responded the following day - December 4, 2025 - reiterating that he was not resigning and would return once paid.
That was their last direct contact.
Six days later, on December 10, the worker tried to log into Coherics' IT systems after a colleague mentioned being locked out. Messages appeared telling him his account had been locked, his profile could not be updated, and the organisation had removed its data from the application. His access was never restored.
The director told the Commission the lockout was caused by a fault with an external technology provider and was fixed within 12 to 48 hours. He said he notified other employees about the outage but not the worker, because the worker was on his work pause. He also agreed he never told anyone when the system came back online, saying they "would work out when it was restored."
The Commission was not persuaded.
It found the employer's conduct - failing to pay wages, letting the office power get cut, and removing system access - was the driving force behind the end of the employment relationship on December 10, 2025. Critically, the employer never told the worker the system issue was temporary, never confirmed he was still employed, and never set out a path for him to return to work.
The director said he never intended to end the employment. The Commission gave that no weight, finding that what mattered was what the company did, not what its director said he meant.
On the question of fairness, the Commission found no proper reason for the dismissal, no notice, and no process. It noted the employer knew the worker was in financial distress - having gone unpaid for roughly two months - and that the dismissal made things worse.
The Commission was also unimpressed with the director's evidence, finding him "vague in his evidence about matters of substance and dismissive about his role in the decline of the business." He preferred to describe the situation as a company collapse, the Commission noted, without acknowledging that he was the only active director running it. He provided no documents to back up any of his claims.
Despite that, the director's own evidence that Coherics no longer employed anyone meant reinstatement - putting the worker back in the job - was not an option. The Commission turned to compensation instead.
It estimated the worker would likely have stayed employed until mid-February 2026, when the director said the company's last employees were let go. That gave a projected loss of 10 weeks' pay, totalling $18,269.25 gross.
The worker had not sat idle. He picked up casual hospitality shifts and contractor work at the Adelaide Fringe Festival, earning $13,723.61 in alternative income.
The Commission ordered Coherics to pay the difference: $4,545.64 gross (less applicable tax), plus $545.48 in superannuation contributions. Payment was due within 14 days.
Whether Coherics can actually pay is another matter. The director told the Commission the company had "completely and utterly collapsed" and had no money. But once again, he produced nothing to support that claim. The Commission said it was not prepared to withhold compensation on the strength of unsupported assertions.
For HR professionals, the case is a sharp illustration of how a company's operational failures can amount to a dismissal even when no one ever says the words. No termination letter was sent. No meeting was held. But the cumulative effect of not paying wages, not maintaining a workplace, and not communicating left the Commission in no doubt about what had happened.
The decision was handed down on September 15, 2026.
