Worker deleted from staff chat after working several shifts following disputed resignation

A sales assistant challenged her dismissal, arguing she never resigned despite her manager and sister telling the employer she was leaving when the manager quit. 

The worker contended she was dismissed when she was deleted from the staff chat group after working several more shifts following the disputed phone conversation. 

The employer maintained the worker resigned through her manager, pointing to the worker removing herself from the business group chat and the manager's statement that the worker had said she was leaving.

Manager's resignation and disputed phone call

The worker commenced employment with the employer in approximately March 2022, working as a sales assistant engaged as a casual employee. 

The employer operates a sports shop and a toy shop in Orange. Up until her resignation, the worker's sister was the store manager of both shops in Orange. 

The worker worked in both shops, however, it appears the worker worked mostly in the sports shop. On 5 May 2025, the manager sent a text message to the employer's operations manager saying that she was resigning from her employment.

On 6 May 2025, the operations manager spoke to the manager by telephone. There is a factual contest between the parties concerning this conversation. 

The manager's account was: "I told her that I was leaving as I was sick of being bullied and disrespected. [Operations manager] asked me if I had another job to go to and I replied 'no'. She then asked, 'is [worker] leaving too as I understand it would be awkward for her?' I replied 'I'm not sure, you'd have to ask her'."

The operations manager's account included: "I said: 'Okay, if you are leaving, what does this mean for [worker]? I see that [worker] has already left 'The Big Outlet chat'' 

She said: 'The [worker] has told me that she is leaving too.' I said: 'Okay, I see that it may be awkward for the [worker] to remain when you are also leaving. Are you able to help me find replacement staff before you finish up?' She said: 'So you are not going to talk me out of it.'"

Credibility assessment and finding

The crux of the factual dispute is whether the manager, who is both the worker's manager and sister, said to the operations manager during the telephone conversation on 6 May 2025, words to the effect that the worker would also be leaving her employment. 

The employer says that such words were said. Consequently, the employer submitted that the worker resigned from her employment and has not been dismissed. The worker denies that such words were said.

The conversation took place at work. The worker was working in the shop with the manager when the conversation took place. 

In cross-examination, the worker said that she may have overheard a little bit of the conversation; however, she could not remember the conversation. 

Under cross-examination, the manager said that the worker was present during this conversation. 

The manager said that the worker was working around the shop throughout this discussion and within a couple of metres to 20 metres away.

With the benefit of observing all the witnesses give evidence, the Commissioner preferred the evidence of the operations manager. 

Although the cross-examination was brief, the Commissioner was satisfied that the operations manager was the more reliable witness. 

One, the operations manager gave a far more comprehensive written account of the conversation than the manager. 

In cross-examination, the manager agreed with at least some parts of the operations manager's written account of the conversation that were not included in the manager's written statement. 

Two, the Commissioner did not accept the reliability of some of the answers given by the manager in cross-examination.

Both the worker and manager worked several shifts together in the shop after the conversation on 6 May 2025. 

According to the manager's version of events, she had notified the operations manager of her resignation, was waiting for the operations manager to come and discuss her ongoing employment face-to-face, and ultimately had a panic attack when the operations manager did not come to have those discussions. 

In that context, the Commissioner asked the manager at the hearing whether she had any conversations with the worker about the worker's ongoing employment in that period. 

The manager responded, 'not really, she just expected to stay there'. In the context explained, the Commissioner did not accept that two sisters who worked together would 'not really' have had such conversations.

Group chat removal and bluffing context

Consequently, the Commissioner found that the conversation between the manager and operations manager on 6 May 2025 was consistent with the operations manager's evidence. 

By way of context, the manager's resignation was motivated by her view that she had been bullied and disrespected by the employer. 

Based on answers given by the worker to some questions from the Commissioner at the hearing, it appears that the manager was hoping that the operations manager would talk her out of resignation. 

The worker described this as bluffing. It may well be that the manager's comments to the operations manager about the worker's ongoing employment were also part of such a bluff.

Ultimately, the operations manager did not attempt to talk the manager out of her resignation. 

Rather, the operations manager's evidence was that she accepted what was conveyed to her as a resignation by both the manager and the worker without trying to persuade one or both to remain employees. 

On 6 May 2025, the worker removed herself from a group chat. The group includes senior staff members across the employer's entire business. 

The worker gave evidence that she accidentally deleted herself from this group chat and was only trying to silence that chat. The Commissioner did not accept that evidence. 

There is a strong temporal connection between the manager sending the text message on 5 May 2025 and the worker removing herself from this group chat.

Several shifts worked after conversation

The worker and manager worked several shifts following 6 May 2025. The operations manager's evidence was that she accepted the manager's resignation on 27 May 2025, and the manager's employment came to an end on that day. 

In the period from 6 May 2025 to 27 May 2025, the employer did not communicate with the worker. 

The operations manager's evidence was that the worker's manager had told her that the worker was resigning and, therefore, there was no need for any communication or contact with the worker. 

The operations manager said that this was a normal procedure for the employer with casual staff. 

The effect of the operations manager's evidence was that the worker's resignation would be effective from the same date that the manager's resignation was effective.

On 27 May 2025, the operations manager deleted the manager, the worker and another employee from a group chat called the staff chat. 

This chat group appears confined to the employer's employees based in Orange. It appears that the availability of staff to work in the upcoming week is posted on this chat. 

The staff who are available for shifts indicate their availability on the chat. It is clear that no further shifts would be offered to the manager or the worker after they were deleted from this chat.

On the evening of 27 May 2025, the manager sent a text message to the operations manager. In that text message, the manager said that the worker had been fired. 

In her response, the operations manager stated that the worker had not been sacked. 

Also on 27 May 2025, the worker sent two text messages to the operations manager and owner. In that text message, the worker said that both the manager and she had been fired. 

The worker's characterisation of the manager as being fired was plainly incorrect. The operations manager did not respond to that text message. 

The operations manager explained that she did not reply because she felt that the text message was abusive.

No unambiguous resignation found

The worker relied upon her deletion from the staff chat on 27 May 2025 as evidence that she had been dismissed. 

On the worker's argument, she did not resign her employment and wanted to remain employed by the employer. 

As for the worker's version of events, she knew that the manager and operations manager had spoken on 6 May 2025. 

The FWC pointed out that the logical thing for the worker to have done in those circumstances, and after being deleted from the staff chat, would have been to seek to clarify any misunderstanding about her ongoing employment. Instead, the worker sent the text message discussed above.

A Full Bench stated that "the usual position is that where an employee uses unambiguous words of resignation, the employer is entitled to treat this as an effective resignation which operates to terminate the employment". 

The Commissioner added that where the conduct of an employee unambiguously evidences a resignation, the employer is entitled to treat such conduct as an effective resignation which operates to terminate the employment. 

The Commissioner further added that unambiguous words and conduct evidencing resignation can be used by the relevant employee to the employer directly or by an intermediary.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever of the worker by her words and conduct unambiguously resigning from her employment. 

The Commissioner made a factual finding preferring the operations manager's evidence of the telephone conversation with the manager on 6 June 2025. 

However, the operations manager's evidence does not evidence an unambiguous resignation by the worker. 

At its highest, the operations manager's evidence reveals that the manager told the operations manager that the worker had told the manager that she was leaving.

There was absolutely no evidence that the worker told the manager that she was resigning from her employment and that the worker said the manager to advise her resignation to the operations manager.

Dismissal found when deleted from chat

There was no evidence concerning the worker's conduct that unambiguously evidences a resignation. 

The Commissioner found that the worker intentionally removed herself from the business group chat. 

The Commissioner was unable to find that such conduct unambiguously evidences a resignation. 

That is because the worker worked several shifts after engaging in such conduct. 

The worker working those shifts clearly puts to rest any suggestion that she intentionally removed herself from the chat, unambiguously evidencing a resignation. 

Furthermore, the worker's conduct in deleting herself from this group chat did not mean that the worker could not perform her duties.

In the absence of any evidence that the worker, by her words and conduct, unambiguously resigned her employment, the Commissioner rejected the employer's argument that the worker quit her employment. 

A dismissal refers to a termination of employment that is brought about by an employer and which is not agreed to by the employee. 

In circumstances where the employment relationship is not left voluntarily by the employee, the focus of the inquiry is whether an action on the part of the employer was the principal contributing factor that resulted, directly or consequentially, in the termination of the employment.

The Commissioner found that the worker did not voluntarily cease employment with the employer. 

The Commissioner was satisfied that the principal contributing factor that resulted in the termination of employment was the actions of the operations manager in deleting the worker from the staff chat on 27 May 2025. 

The deletion of the worker from that group chat meant that no further shifts would be offered to the worker. 

Clearly, that directly resulted in the termination of the worker's employment. The Commissioner was satisfied that the worker was dismissed on 27 May 2025.

Employer should have confirmed resignation

The Commissioner's findings should not be misunderstood to mean that any resignation on the part of the worker had to be conveyed to the operations manager herself. 

A legally effective resignation could have been provided by the worker to her manager. 

As explained, there is simply no evidence that the worker herself unambiguously resigned her employment through her words and conduct to the manager, operations manager, or anyone else. 

The prudent thing for the operations manager to have done on being told by the manager on 6 June 2025 that the worker had told the manager she was leaving was to follow up with the worker, either through the manager or herself directly.

Such a follow-up could have included a request that the worker confirm any resignation in writing.

A prudent employer would take such steps to avoid this very argument between the parties. The operations manager took no such steps. 

Rather, several weeks after that telephone conversation with the manager and after the worker had worked several more shifts at the shop, the operations manager deleted the worker from the staff chat. 

The Commissioner found that this amounts to a dismissal. Consequently, the Commissioner rejected the employer's jurisdictional objection.