Text message exchanges demonstrate clear termination intention by manager
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a worker's dismissal allegation, saying that she was fired over text messages by her manager.
The case arose when the worker notified her manager about illness-related absence, leading to heated text message exchanges about work reliability and communication methods that culminated in statements, directing the worker to find alternative employment.
The worker argued she was dismissed through clear statements telling her to find another job and removal from company group chats, interpreting these actions as termination of her employment.
The employer contested this version, maintaining that discussions focused on finding solutions to accommodate the worker's needs while addressing concerns about attendance patterns and communication preferences, arguing that no formal dismissal occurred.
Illness notification triggers attendance concerns
The employment relationship deteriorated when the worker sent text messages on 4 June 2025 notifying her manager about fever symptoms preventing work attendance and requesting colleague coverage for her shift.
The manager expressed concerns about what she perceived as a pattern of Thursday absences and suggested permanently transferring those shifts to another employee who was willing to take over.
The worker responded defensively to suggestions about dropping Thursday schedules, questioning why illness notification was interpreted as abandoning shifts and highlighting previous occasions where she had worked despite feeling unwell.
The manager became increasingly frustrated with text-based communication rather than telephone conversations, expressing a preference for direct verbal discussions about workplace issues.
The text message exchange revealed fundamental disagreement about communication methods and workplace expectations, with the manager repeatedly requesting face-to-face or telephone discussions while the worker provided medical reasons for text-based communication.
The manager expressed concerns about running a small business with limited staff coverage and reliability requirements for hospital cleaning services.
Communication breakdown escalates tensions
The manager's frustration became evident through statements like "I can't keep on dealing with that" and suggestions that the worker find alternative employment while she hunted for replacement coverage.
These communications demonstrated a shift from a problem-solving approach to termination-focused language, indicating a deteriorating relationship beyond repair through discussion.
The manager sent voice messages elaborating on her concerns about the worker's reliability and ability to handle workload demands across multiple jobs.
She expressed a need for employees who lived nearby and could be consistently available, suggesting the worker's injury and illness patterns indicated she was overextended with multiple commitments.
The voice messages thanked the worker for her efforts while explaining business limitations and stating the intention to allocate shifts to other employees who were more willing to communicate by phone and be reliably present.
The manager concluded by wishing the worker success elsewhere, effectively confirming the employment relationship had ended from her perspective.
Group chat removal confirms employment termination
The worker was removed from company group chats on 5 June 2025, which she discovered when attempting to communicate with colleagues about shift arrangements.
When questioned about this removal, the manager stated that "only employees are in the group chat," clearly indicating the worker was no longer considered an employee of the business.
Subsequent text exchanges showed the manager responding with "good luck" messages and statements that the worker would "do great in another workplace," further confirming the termination decision.
The manager cited communication issues as the reason relationships could not continue, maintaining her position that phone calls were essential for workplace coordination.
The Commission found the combination of termination-focused language, removal from workplace communications, and explicit statements about employee status provided clear evidence of dismissal at the employer's initiative.
The manager's actions demonstrated an intention to end the employment relationship rather than continue addressing workplace concerns through accommodation or progressive discipline.
Legal test for dismissal clearly satisfied
Applying established legal principles for determining dismissal, the Commission found compelling evidence that employment was terminated at the employer's initiative through direct statements and actions that a reasonable person would interpret as dismissal.
The manager's text messages contained explicit directions to find alternative employment, combined with immediate exclusion from workplace communications systems.
The Commission rejected the employer's argument that discussions focused on finding solutions, noting that communications quickly shifted from accommodation attempts to termination language when the worker did not agree to reducing her schedule.
The decision emphasised that formal dismissal words are not required when employer actions and statements clearly demonstrate the intention to end the employment relationship.
The worker's reasonable interpretation of termination-focused communications satisfied legal requirements for establishing dismissal, allowing the general protections application to proceed to conference for resolution.
The case demonstrates the importance of clear communication and appropriate processes when addressing workplace concerns in small business environments.
