Firing someone days after a formal complaint is a legal risk
A commercial laundry's wage cut, missed superannuation, and a dismissal two days after a formal complaint has put HR professionals across Australia on notice.
On 17 March 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia handed down its decision in Myo v Hybrid PG Pty Ltd, finding that Hybrid PG Pty Ltd, a commercial laundry based at Mascot in Sydney, and its sole director Patrick Cooper had unlawfully dismissed employee Hnin Kalaya Myo after she exercised her workplace rights. The court also found the company had failed to pay her full wages and had not made required superannuation contributions on time.
Myo was engaged as a permanent part-time laundry team member on 28 July 2022, working 22 hours per week at $30 per hour gross, plus superannuation. She commenced on 9 August 2022.
Less than five weeks in, on 7 September 2022, the company issued a memorandum to all staff advising that hourly rates would be reduced to $25 per hour, effective 12 September 2022. No individual written consent was sought from Myo. Cooper later acknowledged in cross-examination that he had not obtained her agreement to the reduction. The court found the memorandum was "a notification of a unilateral decision, not an invitation to discuss or enter into a variation of the employment contract." It further found that even after the company made a partial back-payment in February 2023, a gross amount of $329 in unpaid wages remained outstanding.
Myo also alleged that in October 2022 she was told she had not accrued any sick leave when she requested a day off to attend a dental appointment and take her son to the hospital. The court found the representation was factually incorrect — she had accrued 7.6 hours of personal leave by that point — but did not find sufficient evidence that the operations manager who made the statement knew it was false or had acted recklessly. The court also found there was insufficient evidence that Myo had taken leave for the qualifying purposes set out in the Act. That claim under s 345 of the Fair Work Act 2009 was therefore not established.
On superannuation, the court found Myo had only become aware of her entitlements through a social worker, after which she opened an account with Host Plus and notified the company in October 2022. Her superannuation balance remained at zero through December 2022 and into February 2023. A payment of $1,325.87 was eventually made in April 2023, but this still fell short of the total amount owed by $48.63. The court found Hybrid PG's failure to make contributions by the required dates contravened the applicable award and the Fair Work Act 2009, with the obligation covering the full period of Myo's employment from August 2022 onward.
The sharpest finding for HR professionals concerns the timing of the dismissal. On 2 December 2022, Myo's legal representative sent a formal letter to Hybrid PG raising concerns about her hourly rate, superannuation, public holiday pay, and sick leave entitlements. Two days later, on 4 December 2022, a Sunday, the company emailed Myo a termination letter signed by Cooper, giving her one week's notice.
The proceedings themselves were notable. Cooper left the courtroom without leave while still under cross-examination on the first day of the final hearing. He failed to appear on the two subsequent hearing dates, and the matter ultimately concluded on an undefended basis. The court noted that his oral evidence was "at best confusing and at worst misleading," and that the respondents' filed materials left much of their case unsupported by evidence.
The company had offered varying explanations for the dismissal: business restructuring and redundancy, an inability to continue offering part-time positions, and a claim that Myo had refused to work afternoon shifts. The court rejected all three as inconsistent and unsupported by evidence, ultimately concluding that "Ms Myo's exercise of workplace rights by letter of 2 December 2022, was a substantial and operative reason for the dismissal of her employment." Cooper was also found personally liable as sole director and signatory of the termination letter. A further hearing on compensation and pecuniary penalties is listed for 3 June 2026.
The case carries several practical implications worth noting. Varying an employee's pay requires documented written agreement from the individual, and a company-wide memo will not suffice. Employers should ensure superannuation contributions are made on time and in full for all eligible employees, as the court's findings in this case covered the entirety of the employee's tenure. And when a termination closely follows a formal complaint, the law presumes a connection between the two unless the employer can clearly demonstrate otherwise. That burden of proof, as this case confirms, sits entirely with the employer.
