A heated exit, a check-in text, and a lesson for HR
A tyre-shop walkout gave HR a clear warning: next-day silence can matter as much as the confrontation itself.
The Fair Work Commission has dismissed an unfair dismissal claim in Luke Van Doorn v Toffy Pty Limited [2026] FWC 538, finding the worker was not dismissed after leaving the workplace during a heated exchange. The decision was issued on June 10, 2026.
For HR leaders, the case is a practical reminder that walkouts should be handled carefully, especially when they follow a dispute about work pace, safety concerns or training expectations. The central issue was not whether the workplace conversation was ideal. It was whether the employment ended because the employer dismissed the worker, or because the worker’s own conduct showed he would not return.
Van Doorn worked full time as an assistant manager for Toffy Pty Limited, a small mechanical and tyre-fitting business. He had also started an apprenticeship toward a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology, with practical training components conducted during paid work hours.
He claimed he was dismissed on December 2, 2025, because he would not agree to work faster at what he considered an unsafe pace, and because he did not comply with a manager’s direction to complete apprenticeship training in his own time. The employer denied dismissing him and said he had “voluntarily abandoned his employment.”
Commissioner Matheson accepted that company director Chris Tofalakis had, in substance, asked Van Doorn to work faster that morning. The Commission also found that Van Doorn likely referred to concerns about working at an unsafe pace, and that the exchange became heated.
From there, the evidence diverged. The Commission found it likely that Van Doorn indicated he was leaving the workplace. Tofalakis said Van Doorn collected his belongings and left despite being asked not to go. Witness accounts differed on the exact words used around “abandonment,” but the Commission found that Tofalakis did not want Van Doorn to leave and did not request that he do so.
What happened later proved important. That evening, Tofalakis sent Van Doorn a message saying it was “a shame the way things went” and asking whether he was okay. The Commission described the message as an “olive branch” and said it gave Van Doorn an opportunity to explain if he intended to return.
Van Doorn did not respond, did not attend work on December 3, 2025, and did not communicate further with the employer about returning. The Commission found that, viewed objectively, the employer was entitled to conclude he would not be returning to work.
The application was dismissed after the Commission found there had been no termination at the employer’s initiative, and therefore no dismissal under the Fair Work Act.
For HR, the decision does not mean every walkout can be treated as job abandonment. It points to a safer process: pause before making assumptions, check on the employee, clarify whether they intend to return, and keep a careful record of what was said and done.
The case also shows why managers need to be careful with language during heated moments. Words like “abandonment” can later become central to a dispute. In this case, the employer’s follow-up message helped show it had not dismissed the worker. For HR teams, that is the takeaway: when an employee walks out, the next communication may carry real weight.
