Automated message creates employment confusion after workplace injury claim
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently examined a general protections claim involving a fast food worker who argued she was dismissed after lodging a workers' compensation claim for a workplace injury.
The case arose when the worker received what she interpreted as a termination email from her employer following her extended absence due to injury, leading to confusion about her employment status.
The worker argued she had been dismissed after suffering a workplace injury in March 2025 and successfully claiming workers' compensation.
She maintained that despite being cleared for light duties and making numerous attempts to contact her employer about returning to work, she received no response before being sent what she believed was a dismissal notice in May 2025.
The employer contested the worker's claim, arguing that no dismissal had occurred and that the worker remained an employee.
The company argued that the email in question was an automated message from their training platform, not a termination notice, and that they had been regularly seeking updates on the worker's capacity to return through their workers' compensation claims manager.
Workplace injury triggers workers compensation claim
The employment relationship involved a worker at a franchise restaurant operated under trustee arrangements in Victoria.
On 17 March 2025, the worker suffered a workplace injury and subsequently lodged a workers' compensation claim, which was accepted on 14 April 2025. She later received a certificate of capacity confirming she was fit for light duties.
The worker claimed that despite making numerous efforts to contact the employer about returning to work, she received no response from management.
She explained that in late April 2025, she asked the employer if she could return her uniform so that uniform deductions would cease from her pay, indicating her understanding about the employment situation at that time.
The worker's extended absence from work due to her injury became a central issue in determining whether her employment had been terminated or whether she remained on the company's books while pursuing workers' compensation.
The employer would later argue that they had been actively seeking updates on her capacity to return through appropriate channels.
Training platform email creates dismissal confusion
On 6 May 2025, the worker received an email that she interpreted as a dismissal notice. However, the email did not explicitly state that her employment was terminated. Instead, it thanked her for her time at the restaurant and said the company was "sorry to see her go," while asking her to complete an online exit interview.
The worker said she called the HR department and was told by a staff member that the message constituted a termination notice. She also claimed she spoke with two other managers who confirmed that she had been dismissed, though she provided no names or details about these conversations.
The employer disputed this interpretation, explaining that the email was an automated message sent to employees when they are removed from the training platform.
The manager stated that "the platform regularly removes employees who are on prolonged absences in order to save costs and ensure accuracy in the training data."
Employer maintains no termination occurred
The employer, through its manager, contended that no dismissal had taken place and that the worker remained an employee.
The company explained that they had facilitated the worker's request to return her uniform but maintained this was not connected to any termination of employment.
The employer submitted that they had regularly sought updates about the worker's capacity to return to work through the claims manager appointed to deal with her workers' compensation claim.
This approach, they argued, demonstrated their continued engagement with the worker and intention to maintain the employment relationship.
On 27 May 2025, the day after the worker lodged her application with the FWC, the manager replied to an email from the worker stating that the company was "still working with the insurer on her payments, and that she had not been terminated."
The letter explained that the worker "would have received a default email from the online training which occurs when, after some time, employees are removed from the system if they have not been active in the system."
FWC examines dismissal evidence and context
The FWC carefully examined the email that formed the basis of the worker's dismissal claim, finding that it "did not state that her employment was terminated" but rather "stated that [the restaurant] was sorry to see her go and asked her to complete an exit questionnaire."
The Commission noted it was "plainly a letter sent to someone who is understood to be leaving their employment" rather than "a termination letter."
The Commission found the context of the message made clear this was not a dismissal letter, noting: "If a person has been dismissed, the employer does not ask the person for feedback in an exit interview."
The FWC also considered the worker's language background, noting that her "first language is not English and who required extensive assistance from an interpreter at the hearing, likely misunderstood what [the HR person] said."
Regarding the HR staff member, the Commission found this individual "was not an employee of [the employer] and had no authority to confirm that [the worker] had been dismissed by [the employer] in any event."
The FWC also found the worker's statement about speaking to "two other managers" to be "both vague and unsubstantiated."
Did the employer ignore the worker?
The FWC concluded that the worker remained an employee of the employer, finding: "I accept that [the employer] has sought updates on [the worker's] capacity to return to work through the claims manager who was appointed to deal with her compensation claim. This is a common situation. [The employer] has not ignored her."
The Commission determined that the worker's "employment was not terminated on [the employer's] initiative, nor was she forced to resign. She was not dismissed." The FWC noted that under section 365 of the Fair Work Act, a person may only make an application if they have been dismissed.
The FWC concluded: "[The worker] was not dismissed by [the employer] and therefore had no standing to make her application. For this reason, the jurisdictional objection must be upheld. The application is dismissed."
This decision highlights the importance of clear communication regarding employment status, particularly when automated systems generate messages that could be misinterpreted by employees.
