Dismissed by a one-line text - and the case did not end at the compensation order
The Fair Work Commission has awarded compensation to a 67-year-old room attendant who was dismissed by text after she queried her pay.
She had cleaned rooms at a regional motel for nearly a year, working seven days a week. There was no written contract, no payslips, no tax withheld and no superannuation. She was paid by the room - by her own estimate, about $10.30 - straight into her bank account.
On February 25, 2026, after she messaged asking to be paid, a manager texted back: “You should get your pay by today or tomorrow. But I have no need your service anymore after on my site. Thanks for everything.” In a decision dated September 2, 2026, the Commission found that message ended her employment.
For HR teams, the case is a useful walk-through of two questions that decide a lot of unfair dismissal claims: is the worker actually an employee, and is the employer actually a “small business”?
On the first, the Commission found she was an employee, not a contractor - even though she was paid by the room with no tax or super taken out. What tipped it was control. A manager set which rooms she cleaned, expected her to start by 8:30am, and sent extra tasks by text. The label on the pay arrangement mattered less than how the work actually ran.
The second question is where multi-site operators should pay attention. A business with fewer than 15 employees is a “small business” under the Fair Work Act, which changes how long a worker must be employed before they can claim unfair dismissal. But the Act counts “associated entities” - businesses under common ownership and control - as a single employer for that test. Here, the motel was part of a group of motels and hospitality businesses run by the same owners. Counting the group together, the Commission put the workforce at “at least 53 people.” That put the employer well over the small-business line, so the shorter six-month qualifying period applied - and the room attendant had cleared it.
From there, the Commission found the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. No valid reason was given, and she had no chance to respond. It described her employment as an “exploitative arrangement perpetrated against a vulnerable older person,” noting she worked seven days a week in conditions that risked fatigue and was paid well below the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020. It added that it was “possible to infer” she was let go for asking about her pay.
The employer did not take part in the proceedings at any stage, and the Commission decided the case without it.
On money, the Commission estimated the room attendant would have earned about $33,932 had she kept working, but a legal cap - set at 26 weeks of her pay - reduced the award to $16,472.82, plus $1,736.74 in superannuation, payable within 14 days. It also asked the Commission’s General Manager to refer the arrangement to the Fair Work Ombudsman for further investigation.
The takeaway for HR is practical. Whether someone is an employee turns on how the work is controlled, not how they are paid. And where businesses share owners, a “small business” exemption can fall away once their staff are counted together.
