Hairdresser gives four weeks' notice, gets sacked the next day
A hairdresser raised pay concerns, resigned, and was summarily dismissed the next morning. The Fair Work Commission found no valid reason.
The decision, handed down on 30 March 2026, centres on Ms Abbie Small, who had worked as a full-time hairdresser at Sharp N Stylish Pty Ltd since approximately February 2020. Her superannuation had not been paid for a considerable period, and she was being paid below the applicable award rate. On 21 November 2025, she emailed the business raising concerns about her pay rate. She had also been in contact with a colleague about the absence of documentation from Sharp needed to complete their tax returns for the previous financial year.
Four days later, on 25 November 2025, Ms Small sent a formal resignation email to the salon's owner, Ms Hollie Lobb, giving four weeks' notice. Her notice period was due to run until 23 December 2025. She worked her normal day at the salon.
The following morning, on 26 November 2025, the two discussed the resignation. Ms Lobb accused Ms Small of effectively trying to drive a wedge between the business and its employees by raising the tax documentation issue with a colleague. Ms Lobb then told Ms Small, "Get the fuck out of my salon. I am glad you are leaving."
Ms Small left the salon. A staff member gathered her personal belongings for her father to collect later that day. In text messages that followed, Ms Lobb sent a lengthy letter raising allegations about Ms Small's work reliability, an apprenticeship that had stretched over five years due to inconsistency, and missed trainings. The letter also cited extensive personal and professional support Ms Lobb claimed to have provided. Ms Lobb directed Ms Small to log out of all company accounts, remove herself from the salon's social media platforms, and stay away from the premises.
Ms Small responded in writing, stating she interpreted the exchange as summary dismissal, noting that all means required to perform her job had been removed. Ms Lobb replied by claiming Ms Small had been formally warned about her conduct.
Sharp did not file a response or attend the proceedings. The matter proceeded to a determinative conference in Newcastle on 30 March 2026, where Ms Small appeared for herself.
Deputy President Saunders found the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The Commission found no valid reason for the termination. Contrary to Ms Lobb's claim, no warnings had ever been given to Ms Small about her performance or conduct across nearly six years of employment. The Commission was also not satisfied that Ms Small had engaged in any misconduct. Raising pay concerns and communicating with a colleague about tax documentation were considered entirely appropriate.
The Commission acknowledged that Sharp operated as a small business without dedicated HR expertise, but was unambiguous that "these matters do not excuse a complete absence of procedural fairness."
Reinstatement was ruled out, with the Commission accepting that a viable and productive working relationship between Ms Small and Ms Lobb was no longer possible.
The Commission calculated that Ms Small would have earned $4,278 gross plus $513.36 in superannuation had she worked out her notice period. Set against the $3,021.38 gross plus $362.57 in superannuation she earned after starting new employment on 9 December 2025, the final compensation order came to $1,256.62 gross plus $150.79 in superannuation.
The case raises several points worth noting. The employer had no documented warnings, no performance records, and no structured exit process, leaving no defensible position. The dismissal followed a resignation that came four days after a pay complaint. And the gap between the employer's claim of a formal warning and the Commission's finding that no such warning existed underscores why contemporaneous, documented records matter in managing performance and conduct.
