FWC ruling clarifies when revoking system access mid-notice is defensible
An occupational therapist who quit, was offered a performance plan, and sent a farewell message to a colleague has lost her bid to argue she was sacked.
The Fair Work Commission handed down its decision on 8 May 2026, dismissing the unfair dismissal application brought by Smyrna Parvez against Kaizen Hospitals (Mount District) Pty Limited.
Parvez voluntarily resigned as an occupational therapist after approximately seven months employment on 2 November 2025, giving four weeks' notice through to 28 November 2025. That was longer than she was required to give, and it does not appear to be in dispute that the hospital accepted her extended period of notice.
On the morning of 12 November 2025, Parvez was called into a meeting with the hospital's Hospital Director and Director of Nursing, Kylee Rotherham, and Allied Health Manager, Emily Kenna, to discuss concerns raised by an occupational therapy student and her performance. She was offered two options: bring forward her cessation date by reason of her resignation to 14 November 2025 and take annual leave until then, or maintain her cessation date of 28 November 2025 and work under a performance management plan for the remaining notice period.
Parvez was given time to consider the options. Her account of how long she sat in her car differed between her Form F2 application and her witness statement. In the application she said she sat in her car crying for two hours, while in her witness statement she said she was required to give a response "just after an hour." When the time came, she told the respondent, "I'm going to have to leave," and thereafter left the workplace.
At 1:22pm that same day, she sent a Signal message to a colleague saying goodbye. She referenced "lots of drama and allegations i.e I don't do enough work, students and staff don't like me etc" and said the hospital wanted her gone. The colleague responded at 2:31pm expressing sadness and stating they were "sorry they were making [her] leave early."
Kenna saw the message and removed Parvez from Signal that afternoon. Kenna said the system contained confidential patient and operational information, and she did not consider it appropriate for Parvez to retain access when she did not intend to return to work. It was not in dispute that Parvez did not return to the workplace after 12 November 2025.
On 28 November 2025, the hospital provided Parvez with a separation certificate specifying her cessation date as 14 November 2025. Her final payslip showed the same date. Parvez lodged her unfair dismissal application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on 4 December 2025. The respondent objected on two bases: that Parvez was not dismissed within the meaning of s 386(1), and that the application was lodged out of time, given her Form F2 stated the effective dismissal date was 12 November 2025.
Parvez argued the hospital had ended her employment by trying to shorten her notice, issuing an ultimatum, accusing her of misconduct without evidence and refusing procedural fairness, pressuring her in the carpark, cutting her Signal access, and ending her employment before 28 November 2025. She also argued constructive dismissal.
Deputy President Millhouse did not accept that framing. The Commission found Parvez had not been dismissed. Where an employee who has given notice of resignation has the option to work the full notice period with pay but freely agrees to end the employment earlier, the employment does not end at the initiative of the employer.
One option preserved Parvez's opportunity to work out the full notice period with pay, and she accepted during the proceedings that this was so. A performance management plan, the Commission found, did not make ongoing employment "untenable" as she had contended.
Parvez's own evidence proved decisive. She told the hearing that "immediately after" the meeting, she "did not want to deal with those people ever again," and that she "had no intention" of returning. Her statement in the carpark, taken with the Signal message reviewed by Kenna, objectively demonstrated she would not be returning to work.
The Commission accepted that removing Parvez from Signal, which contained confidential patient information, was a reasonable response once it was objectively clear she was not returning, rather than the act that ended her employment.
The Commission upheld the jurisdictional objection that it did not dismiss Parvez, while finding her employment ceased on 14 November 2025. The application was dismissed.
The decision offers a useful reference point. Presenting a resigning underperformer with a genuine choice between an earlier paid exit and a performance plan during the notice period is unlikely to be treated as a dismissal, provided the option to keep working with pay is real. Cutting system access mid-notice can be defensible where confidential data is involved and the employee's conduct objectively signals they are leaving. Consistent offboarding paperwork matters too. Here, the separation certificate and final payslip were what placed the application within the 21-day window in the first place.
