When the group chat goes quiet, so does the job, Fair Work confirms
A polite Mandarin message and a quiet exit from a WeChat group were enough to constitute dismissal, the Fair Work Commission ruled on 5 May 2026.
The decision in Ms Ching Wen Su v Ojt 399 Pty Ltd, handed down by Commissioner Clarke in Melbourne, centres on a worker at a store trading under the Molly Tea bubble tea brand. Ms Su lodged her application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 24 November 2025, claiming she had been dismissed in circumstances involving a contravention of Part 3-1 of the Act. Her employer disagreed, arguing she had simply stopped nominating shifts.
The story turns on a single message. On 29 October 2025, Ms Su's supervisor sent her a note in Mandarin that, once interpreted, included this passage: "After careful consideration we believe that the current arrangement may not suit you or match with your style in order to enable both you and the team to develop in a more comfortable environment. We plan to terminate this collaboration starting from November 3rd."
The note thanked her for her efforts and wished her success finding a more suitable platform. When Ms Su asked what she had done wrong, her supervisor replied that it was not about anything specific, just differences in working style.
Somewhere between 30 and 31 October 2025, Ms Su met with the store manager, Mr Khong. Her account and his diverged. She said he told her he would speak with the shift supervisor about her concerns and she never heard back. He said she was asked to keep working and to keep nominating shifts. Ms Su denied being invited to nominate availability at that meeting.
She worked her last shift on 2 November 2025. The next day, she was removed from the store's WeChat group, the platform the business used daily for operational and communication purposes and for sharing links to the Google-based system where rosters and availability were managed. Ms Su said that once she was out of the chat, she could no longer reach those links.
The employer's case was that Ms Su's employment ended because she did not nominate any availability after 2 November 2025. It also told the Commission, in closing, that the 29 October message was "not a decision, but a notification to her saying, like, 'Your employment will finish on 3 November.'" That was a noticeable shift from its written submission, which had said the company did not communicate any intention to end the employment relationship.
Commissioner Clarke was not persuaded. The Commissioner found Ms Su was dismissed on notice on 29 October 2025, with the dismissal taking effect on 3 November 2025. The meeting with Mr Khong, the Commissioner said, was best understood as Ms Su asking for the decision to be reconsidered, with Mr Khong undertaking to give that request some consideration in consultation with the shift supervisor, not as the decision being withdrawn. Removing her from WeChat was consistent with the dismissal going ahead as planned. The decision also noted there was no submission or evidentiary basis to demonstrate that the shift supervisor lacked the authority to dismiss her.
The employer's timing argument also fell away. Because the dismissal took effect on 3 November 2025, the Commissioner found the 24 November application was brought within time and no extension was necessary. The jurisdictional objections were dismissed, and the matter will now proceed to a private dispute resolution conference under section 368 of the Act.
The case is a useful reminder that softly worded messages about "collaboration" and "working style" can still read as a termination notice. It also underlines that messaging apps used for rostering are now part of the workplace, and removing access to them is conduct an objective observer may treat as ending the job. Finally, frontline supervisors with the apparent authority to make those calls can bind the business, whether HR is in the room or not.
