When 'we'll assume you've resigned' becomes proof that you dismissed them
A cargo worker stopped showing up after raising concerns about a colleague's conduct. His employer sent the standard abandonment letter. The Fair Work Commission called it a dismissal.
On 11 May 2026, Commissioner Crawford handed down a decision that should make every HR team take a second look at how they handle workers who go silent. The case involved Md Abdullah Haque, a Cargo Service Delivery Agent at dnata Airport Services in Sydney, and it turned a routine "deemed resignation" process into a textbook example of how the words in an HR letter can decide who ended the employment.
Haque started with dnata on 12 March 2025. He raised several concerns about the conduct of co-workers during his employment, and after issues arose in August 2025, the company separated him where possible from working with another employee. Things escalated on 8 December 2025, when Haque raised serious concerns about the conduct of two other employees towards a female staff member. Those employees strongly denied any wrongdoing.
The next day, Import Warehouse Manager Doug Kilner sent Haque home early from a non-rostered pickup shift after the two colleagues complained about rumours that had allegedly been circulated by Haque about their conduct. The Commissioner later found the next steps for Haque's employment were not entirely clear when he left the worksite, observing "a degree of confusion between Mr Haque and Mr Kilner about what would happen next." Haque then missed his next rostered shift and did not respond to several attempts to contact him by phone and email.
On 22 December 2025, HR Business Partner, Cargo Operations Clarice Gillies emailed Haque a letter giving him five working days to explain his absence or dnata would assume he had voluntarily resigned. Haque said he did not view the email until 5 January 2026, after the 31 December deadline had passed. He filed a general protections dismissal application on 13 January 2026, identifying a dismissal date of 31 December 2025. dnata had processed his termination the day before, on 12 January 2026, though, as the Commissioner noted, "it is unclear why that date was selected."
Dismissal, not resignation
dnata argued Haque had abandoned his job, which constituted a renunciation of his employment obligations. Commissioner Crawford disagreed. He zeroed in on the language Gillies used. The letter stated that "dnata considers your absence to be unauthorised," "dnata will assume you have voluntarily resigned," and "your employment will be terminated accordingly." That wording, the Commissioner said, was "consistent with dnata being the party that was making decisions about whether Mr Haque's employment would continue."
On repudiation, he found Haque's conduct fell short, stating it "would have conveyed to a reasonable person that a substantial dispute had arisen between Mr Haque and dnata about his employment and that the dispute was some way from being resolved."
The Commissioner also questioned the abandonment doctrine itself, expressing "doubts about whether the FW Act intends to exclude the circumstances commonly referred to as an 'abandonment of employment' from the meaning of a dismissal in s.386 of the FW Act." He described treating such cases as employer-initiated dismissals as "much simpler and more efficient" than applying the "complicated contractual concept of renunciation."
Haque was found dismissed at dnata's initiative on 12 January 2026 within the meaning of s.386(1)(a), dnata's jurisdictional objection was dismissed, and the matter was listed for conciliation. The Commissioner encouraged Haque to attend "with realistic expectations" given his short tenure and repeated failure to communicate.
The lesson in this case is sharp: template abandonment letters that position the employer as the decision-maker can undermine a later argument that the worker resigned, particularly where the absence follows an unresolved workplace dispute.
