She joined the first mediation session by video. The dismissal email landed mid-call
A regional aged care provider must pay almost $68,000 after the Fair Work Commission found it sacked a senior cook for a refusal that never happened.
In a decision handed down on May 27, 2026, Commissioner Walkaden ruled that the dismissal of Leoni Seychelles by Yass Valley Aged Care was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and ordered compensation capped at $67,741.44 plus superannuation.
Seychelles was a senior cook at the provider's facility in Yass, in regional New South Wales. She had a strained relationship with her kitchen manager and complained that the manager had bullied and treated her unreasonably. An internal review and an external investigation by a solicitor both found insufficient evidence to substantiate bullying. The external investigator put the conflict down to poor communication and recommended mediation, but only as a voluntary step, "contingent on both parties agreeing to participate."
The employer wanted that mediation to happen. The chief executive raised it repeatedly across 2025. Seychelles was hesitant. In an August email she said her health professionals believed she was "not in any way ready to proceed with mediation at this time, due to the anxiety that I am having just thinking about the process." She also said she wanted to resolve the situation.
By August 19 she had shifted. At a meeting that day, the Commission found, the chief executive urged her to take part, and Seychelles said words to the effect that she did not really have a choice. On August 26 she emailed the external facilitator to book a time. On August 27, she joined the first confidential session by video call.
While that session was underway, at 3:46 p.m., the chief executive sent a termination letter. The reason given: Seychelles had "refused to comply with that direction" to take part in the facilitated process. The letter described that refusal as "serious misconduct."
The Commission rejected the basis entirely. Commissioner Walkaden found there had been no direction to attend mediation, only strong encouragement, and no refusal. The employer's own advocate conceded the point. Counsel for the provider, the decision records, "properly and honourably, conceded that the reasons for Mrs Seychelles' dismissal were not made out."
"The conduct for which Mrs Seychelles was dismissed simply did not occur," the Commissioner wrote. "It is not a valid reason for dismissal."
The procedural failures piled up. Seychelles was never warned that dismissal was being considered and never given a chance to respond, both points the chief executive accepted under cross-examination. And when Seychelles phoned that same afternoon to say she had just finished the first session, the decision records that the chief executive did not reconsider.
For HR leaders, the case is a tidy walk through how the Fair Work Act's section 387 factors apply. No valid reason. No notice. No opportunity to respond. The Commission also weighed section 387(g), which looks at whether a lack of dedicated HR expertise shaped the process. The provider had no HR specialist; the chief executive handled the function herself, and the dismissal letter was drafted with the help of external lawyers. That did not rescue a decision resting on a reason that was simply untrue.
Applying the Sprigg formula, the Commission arrived at $85,046.24 plus superannuation, then applied the statutory cap to reach a gross $67,741.44 plus superannuation.
The takeaway is plain. Before dismissing someone for ignoring a direction, make sure the direction was actually given, and that the person actually ignored it.
