How a worker's own follow-up emails dismantled her case for unfair treatment
A probationary worker was told her job was over, then offered it back. When she later walked away, she filed a dismissal claim. The Commission said no.
The Fair Work Commission has dismissed a general protections application from a customer service officer who argued she was sacked during her probation, finding instead that her employer effectively reversed the dismissal and that she later changed her mind about returning to work.
In a decision handed down on 11 May 2026, Deputy President Wright considered the case of a single parent with full care responsibilities who had started with a not-for-profit community services organisation on 28 July 2025 in a Customer Service Officer role involving scheduling, call-taking and customer support. Her performance review letter referred to a six-month probationary period.
The worker alleged her dismissal followed a very short performance review period, a lack of procedural fairness, contradictory feedback from senior leadership, and discriminatory treatment relating to her parental responsibilities. These allegations were not determined by the Commission, which considered only whether a dismissal had occurred.
On 29 October 2025, the worker received a performance review letter from her manager following a meeting on 21 October 2025 where concerns were raised about customer interaction, service scheduling and communication style. The letter warned that failure to demonstrate significant and sustained improvement may result in unsuccessful completion of her probation.
On 5 November 2025, the manager told her she had not shown the necessary improvements and her employment would end that day.
That evening at 6:52pm, she emailed the CEO and the General Manager, Care and Service Delivery. "Just wanted to say i loved working at community vision but the cso area is so so toxic," she wrote, attaching a document setting out grievances.
The CEO, who gave evidence that she had not been involved in the decision to end the worker's employment, replied at 7:17pm offering to meet. The next morning, the two spoke for around 26 minutes. The CEO offered two options: resume her role with further training and the option of a different supervisor, or leave with four weeks' pay, comprising her one-week contractual notice plus additional pay as a goodwill gesture. The worker responded that she did not want to leave.
On 12 November 2025, after a 23-minute call, she and the CEO agreed she would return to work on 24 November 2025. The CEO's evidence was that the conversation also covered repeating training, seating adjustments, and the General Manager overseeing her work. The worker disputed being told the General Manager would be her manager.
The next day, the worker asked whether she could have the original termination document, saying she might be able to claim extra money through her single parent pension. The CEO clarified that by agreeing to come back she had not been terminated. The worker replied: "All good with the 24th November. I will pop to reception on thursday next week if ok and collect remote for gate if that is ok."
On the morning of 21 November 2025, three days before her scheduled return, the worker rang the CEO and said she would not be coming back. The employer paid her four weeks in lieu of notice as a goodwill gesture and provided a formal reference. She lodged her Fair Work application on 25 November 2025.
Deputy President Wright found the employer had not taken steps to implement the 5 November dismissal. The worker had been paid that day in the ordinary pay cycle, was not paid out notice under s.117(2) of the Fair Work Act, and continued to receive payslips and accrue annual leave afterwards. The parties had agreed to maintain the employment relationship, and the worker's own emails were consistent with that agreement.
The Deputy President concluded the employment ended on 21 November 2025 because the worker changed her mind, not because the employer dismissed her. The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The case is a reminder that a dismissal communicated verbally can be effectively undone if both parties agree to continue the employment relationship, and that contemporaneous emails and payroll records can become decisive evidence. It also shows the importance of clarifying in writing whether a worker is, or is not, still employed.
