'Formally requesting' a transition isn't the same as quitting, the FWC reminds employers
A Tasmanian disability support worker who floated a flexible work proposal found herself locked out of systems and stripped of shifts within days.
The Fair Work Commission handed down its decision on 8 May 2026, finding that Danni-Elle Palmer was unfairly dismissed by Inspire Support Services Tas Pty Ltd after her employer treated an exploratory email as a resignation she never made. Commissioner Redford ordered the company to pay compensation, even though the employer never showed up to defend itself.
The story begins in late January 2026. Palmer, who had worked for the Tasmanian disability support provider since August 2024 (first as a casual disability support worker and then as a permanent administration and rostering officer from February 2025), sent her director, Leanne Pearton, an email raising concerns about the business and proposing a new arrangement. She wanted to transition out of her permanent role and support some of the company's clients independently, while remaining available for casual shifts. Her words, quoted in the decision, were measured, "I am formally requesting to transition to supporting these participants independently, should they choose to do so, so their supports can continue smoothly and without disruption."
She asked for a written response within seven days. When none came, she sent a follow-up on 1 February 2026 saying she would take the silence as confirmation she could proceed. Pearton replied the same day, framing the exchange very differently. "I've received your resignation and your plan to work independently with Inspire Support Services Tas Pty Ltd clients," Pearton wrote, reminding Palmer that her contract prohibited independent work with clients.
Palmer pushed back, saying she had never resigned. On 2 February 2026, Pearton asked for company property to be returned and told Palmer she had been removed from the company's emails and communications. Palmer's access to the respondent's systems, including her administrative rights over the care shift app, was cut, her shifts disappeared, and on 9 February 2026 a client told her they had been informed she no longer worked there.
Commissioner Redford found that Palmer's emails were a proposition, not a resignation. The language was qualified and open to discussion. The Commissioner concluded that the employer's act of treating the emails as a resignation, cutting access, demanding property and stopping shifts, all without clarifying Palmer's actual intention, was what ended the employment. In other words, this was a dismissal at the employer's initiative.
The Commissioner also considered, in the alternative, whether Palmer would have been "forced to resign" under section 386(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had she been found to have resigned. While noting that the respondent's "abject failure" to pay lawful superannuation entitlements was significant and could, in some circumstances, leave an employee with no choice but to resign, the Commissioner stopped short of making that finding because it was not necessary, given the conclusion that Palmer had been dismissed at the employer's initiative in any event.
Because the respondent appeared to be a small business employer, the Commissioner also examined whether the dismissal complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. It did not. Palmer had not engaged in conduct serious enough to justify summary dismissal, the reason given (that she had resigned) was not a valid reason, and her attempts to engage further were dealt with cursorily and then ignored.
The decision also painted a wider picture of the workplace. For roughly six months before the end of her employment, Palmer said her wages were almost always paid at least two to three days late. Superannuation had not been paid throughout her employment, apart from a single instalment on 5 January 2026 covering the period 19 August 2024 to 15 September 2024. She was also not paid for at least her final week of work or her accumulated entitlements on termination. The Commissioner found these issues added to the harshness of the dismissal.
The company did not participate in the proceedings despite numerous attempts to reach it. Contact attempts by email, SMS and (after the matter was adjourned on 29 April 2026) express post to its registered office and principal place of business began on 2 March 2026 and continued through to the rescheduled hearing on 5 May 2026, which proceeded in the respondent's absence.
After her dismissal, Palmer entered into a business partnership with her husband, which the Commissioner factored into the compensation calculation along with a 25 per cent contingency discount. She was awarded $11,275.20 in compensation, plus a superannuation contribution of $1,353.02, payable within 14 days. Reinstatement was not sought.
The case is a reminder that ambiguous employee communications deserve clarification, not assumption. When an employee uses words like "proposing," "requesting" or "open to discussing," treating the message as a resignation can convert a conversation into a dismissal. A single follow-up question asking the employee to confirm their intention can prevent a costly misread. The decision is also a prompt to check that wages, superannuation and final entitlements are being paid on time, because underlying compliance failures can amplify the consequences when a separation goes wrong, and, in small business contexts, can compound a failure to follow the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
