Decade-long employment ends abruptly when salary negotiations spiral into an aggressive text exchange
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving a worker who was terminated via text message after requesting a pay rise, sparking debate about proper dismissal procedures and compensation arrangements.
The worker argued that his dismissal was unfair, claiming he was terminated without valid reason or proper process after nearly a decade of employment.
He maintained that he had simply requested a long-overdue pay review due to rising living costs, which led to his abrupt termination via text message.
The worker sought reinstatement or compensation for what he described as an unreasonable dismissal following years of unkept promises about salary increases.
The employer, however, disputed that a dismissal had occurred at all, arguing instead that the worker had abandoned his employment or refused to attend work.
The worker had been employed by a recruitment company for nearly 10 years. He worked as the company's only employee on a four-day week basis, earning a base salary plus commission payments.
His role was crucial to operations, as the employer later acknowledged it could not trade profitably without employees. The circumstances leading to termination began when the worker repeatedly requested a pay review after two years without any salary increase.
On 3 February 2025, the company director responded via email stating: "You have me by the balls," adding that he was "struggling massively." The director offered a modest $5,000 increase, which the worker accepted.
However, when the promised pay rise was missing from his February pay, the worker complained to the director. He highlighted his performance and raised concerns about the director's "history of repeated broken and false promises regarding my compensation."
This complaint triggered events that led to his immediate termination via text message without notice or proper procedure.
The employer's response escalated inappropriately. On 17 February 2025, the director responded "falsely stating that I was 'on 85k base salary package including super', adding 'that's a fucking good base. There is no pay rise. Do you want to continue or not?'"
The director then blocked the worker from the company email system, preventing him from responding or performing work duties.
The dismissal continued via text message, where the director stated: "If we can't have a conversation then I think it's time to terminate the employment. You agree?"
When the worker replied he was not resigning and had done nothing wrong, the director responded: "Ok. I'm terminating you with immediate effect."
The FWC found this process fundamentally flawed, noting the worker was "unfairly dismissed by [the employer] (via text message on 17 February 2025) for no 'valid reason' and absent procedural fairness."
The Commission emphasised that proper dismissal procedures require valid reasons and appropriate processes, neither of which were present. The abrupt dismissal via text message demonstrated a clear breach of fair dismissal principles.
The FWC applied the established "Sprigg formula" to calculate appropriate compensation.
This method involves estimating remuneration the worker would have received if employment had continued, deducting earnings since termination, discounting for contingencies, and calculating taxation impacts.
The Commission found the worker's employment would have continued for at least six months but for the unfair dismissal.
Based on pay records, the worker had earned $46,885.10 in the six months prior to dismissal. The Commission noted: "Six months (or 26 weeks) post [the worker's] dismissal is 18 August 2025. Multiplying [the worker's] weekly rate of $1,803.27 per week by 26 weeks comes to a gross figure of $46,885.10."
After applying a five percent discount for contingencies, final compensation was set at $44,540.84 plus superannuation.
The Commission found the worker had made reasonable efforts to mitigate losses by seeking new employment but was unsuccessful.
The FWC noted: "While [the worker] did not provide evidence of his job applications, I found his oral submissions to be credible in circumstances where he was dismissed via text message, and paid no notice."
The employer requested compensation be reduced due to poor financial position and asked for instalment payments rather than a lump sum.
The company was subject to a formal restructuring plan with monthly payments of $9,150 until October 2025, plus business expenses of approximately $9,000 monthly. However, the FWC was not satisfied that financial difficulties justified reducing compensation.
The Commission noted: "There was no evidence before me of the specific effect (or likely effect) on the 'viability' of [the employer's] business that an award of compensation will actually have."
The decision emphasised that employers must provide probative evidence of how compensation orders impact business viability, beyond simply adding to existing debt.
Despite rejecting reduced compensation, the FWC allowed payment by instalments over six weeks rather than the requested 12 months.
The Commission structured five instalment payments with strict compliance requirements, noting if any payment was late, "all future or remaining Instalment Payment/s shall cease to have effect, and the Total Amount shall become immediately due and payable."
The final order totalled $44,540.84 plus 11.5 percent superannuation, balancing the worker's need for prompt payment with the employer's financial constraints while maintaining "a fair go all round has been afforded to both [the worker] and [the employer]."
