The dispute unfolded entirely via text in a single evening
A hospitality employer who treated a worker's heated text messages as an instant resignation learned the hard way that Australian employment law requires a cooling-off period.
The Fair Work Commission ruled January 27, 2026, that Valor and Pride Hospitality Group Pty Ltd terminated Anthony Clark at the employer's initiative, not through genuine resignation, after a text message dispute that unfolded in a single evening.
Clark started work as a manager at Central Bar and Kitchen in New South Wales on August 2, 2025, earning $70,000 annually under the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020. His employment lasted just six weeks.
The trouble began at 7:44pm on September 12, 2025, when company director Mark Smith texted Clark about his rostering. Smith raised the possibility of stepping Clark back to casual hours and questioned his claim of working 52 hours per week. Smith also mentioned that based on Clark's performance, he could be moved to a bar staff position rather than manager, with discussions planned for the weekend.
Clark responded that he would never agree to casual, wouldn't accept a casual position, and would send back the wrist band, key and shirts. He said he wouldn't be in the next day and didn't deserve "this kind of disrespect."
Smith immediately asked if this was a resignation without notice. When Clark said he would forward a medical certificate, Smith responded with a text that included "You resigned first. Bad luck." He also told Clark he wouldn't be paid for his last week's work.
Clark disputed the characterization that same evening and again the next day by email, stating he had not resigned from his full-time position and was rejecting the casual role offer. Smith refused to reconsider, telling Clark to return company property and that the accountant would assess his final payment.
Deputy President Cross examined whether the employment ended through dismissal or resignation. The decision hinged on whether Smith had given Clark reasonable time to clarify his intentions after what appeared to be statements made in the heat of the moment.
The Commission found that Smith "seized upon the Applicant advising he would not agree to a casual position, and advising that he would send the wrist band, key and shirts back in, as an irreversible resignation."
More critically, the decision noted "[t]here was no attempt at clarification or confirmation with the Applicant after a reasonable time that the Applicant genuinely intended to resign."
Instead, the Commission found, Smith studiously resisted any revisitation after deciding it was a resignation, even when Clark immediately disputed it.
The ruling relied on established precedent requiring employers to verify resignations that occur during emotional exchanges or workplace disputes. When an employee makes ambiguous statements during a conflict, employers cannot simply treat those statements as final without proper confirmation.
The Commission dismissed the employer's jurisdictional objection, clearing the way for Clark's application alleging contraventions involving dismissal to proceed to a full hearing on its merits.
For employers, the case highlights the danger of accepting resignations communicated via text message during workplace disputes. The medium's immediacy combined with workplace tension creates conditions where statements may not reflect genuine intent. The Commission expects employers to allow cooling-off time and seek written confirmation before treating such communications as employment termination.
