One day's notice, no genuine response opportunity, and a pre-made decision
On 30 March 2026, the Fair Work Commission ruled a Sydney employee's dismissal unfair despite real performance issues at a mid-sized financial services firm.
The case concerned Ms Zahro Safitri, a Customer Support Executive at International Capital Markets Pty Ltd, who worked there from early 2022 until her dismissal on 16 October 2025. Her role involved responding to client enquiries via email, live chat, phone and social media, and handling technical questions about the company's trading platforms. The firm said she was let go for ongoing performance problems, particularly punctuality, communication and availability.
The employer's concerns had a long paper trail. A formal written warning issued on 3 January 2024, which Ms Safitri signed, cited consistent lateness and failure to advise managers of her attendance times. Later that month she was placed on a three-month performance improvement plan, which identified communication issues around lateness, breaks and leave, and flagged that termination was a possible consequence of inaction.
A second warning letter dated 13 March 2024 related to an unapproved absence. The Commission was not satisfied it was actually given to her at the time and accepted that the leave was ultimately approved, supported by a medical certificate, and that she had returned to work by 14 March 2024. It did find against her on a related point, however: a text exchange in evidence confirmed she had sent a request for extra leave from Bali at 11.10pm the night before she was due back in Sydney, at a time when she would have been well aware she was not returning as expected. The Commission found this amounted to inadequate communication, leaving the employer little time to make contingency arrangements.
A meeting on 20 August 2025 with head of human resources Ms Constance Koullinos and manager Mr Carter Mullins covered both ongoing punctuality and communication concerns and a forthcoming university placement. The company also learned she had been attending a Friday morning university class without approval while rostered to work from home. A follow-up email on 26 August 2025 confirmed the concerns remained live and noted a mismatch between what the role required and what was being delivered. According to the respondent, Ms Safitri was told at that meeting that it "did not have any more room to be lenient."
In cross-examination, she accepted there may have been some lateness after the August 2025 meeting but said the issue was common across the team and that her own punctuality had improved. She also pointed to "Star Agent" bonuses received during much of 2024 and in March, April and May 2025, and a pay rise in March 2025. The company said the bonus was a broad incentive rather than a mark of exceptional performance and described the pay rise as modest and not performance-based.
She argued that the real reason for her dismissal was her university placement, due to start one business day after she was let go, and that Mr Mullins had told her he would find a replacement if she proceeded with it. The Commission found there was insufficient evidence to support that conclusion.
Her employment ended at a meeting on 16 October 2025. She had one day's notice of it, brought a support person — who could assist but not advocate on her behalf — and received a written termination letter on the day. Deputy President Roberts found there was a valid reason to dismiss, applying the established test that a reason must be "sound, defensible or well founded," and was satisfied she had been warned about her performance.
The dismissal was still found harsh and unreasonable. Although the meeting notice said no final decision would be made until after her response was heard, the Commission concluded the decision had already been made before the meeting took place. Ms Koullinos conceded that she did not make the call herself and was effectively delivering a decision reached by others after extensive internal discussions. With nearly four years of service, no misconduct findings, no formal performance steps taken after August 2025, and summary dismissal one business day before an unpaid university placement, the Commission found the process operated harshly against her.
Reinstatement was not sought and was not considered appropriate. The Commission determined that compensation should be calculated on the basis of eight additional weeks of employment at her gross weekly salary of $1,311.54, less four weeks' pay in lieu of notice already received and any income earned during that eight-week period post-dismissal. However, no final compensation figure was determined. The applicant was directed to provide details of any post-termination earnings within two days, and if the parties could not agree on a final amount, written submissions were due by close of business on 2 April 2026.
HR professionals and business leaders may see this decision as a reminder that performance issues, even when real and well-documented, must be paired with timely process, a genuine opportunity to respond, and clear evidence that the decision-maker actually considered that response before the outcome was reached.
