Can ending a live-in arrangement and role without a formal dismissal count as termination?
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently examined whether a worker had been unfairly dismissed after being removed from a leadership position and required to leave her employer-provided accommodation.
The worker said she had no opportunity to respond to concerns about her performance and was never formally told her job was at risk. After the role ended, she received no instruction to return to work and believed she had been terminated.
Weeks later, the employer issued a second letter, this time alleging serious misconduct. The worker denied the accusation.
The FWC reviewed both the performance concerns and the later allegation to determine whether the dismissals were justified and how the situation should be resolved.
The worker had started in early 2022 as a part-time assistant. In December 2023, she moved into employer-provided accommodation and began a live-in role. In August 2024, she was promoted to a new position as house coordinator.
By September, concerns were raised about her performance. A senior manager informed her that other team members and family representatives had made complaints.
She was told she needed to improve her consistency, leadership, and ability to create a cohesive household environment.
The worker gave a written response on 11 September 2024. A follow-up meeting took place the next day, where she again shared her side. Despite this, on 4 November 2024, she was given a letter stating:
“… your contract as House Coordinator has been terminated, effective immediately… the offer of accommodation has been withdrawn. You are requested to remove your personal items as soon as possible but not later [than] the end of November…”
The worker said she assumed she had been dismissed. She left the residence and did not return to work.
The employer, however, later said that she had not been terminated and remained on their payroll in a lower role.
The employer told the FWC that the worker had simply been demoted and offered continued employment elsewhere. It said she remained on the books until her second termination in January 2025.
The worker disagreed and said there was no meaningful communication or follow-up after she received the letter. The FWC accepted her version of events, stating:
“I accept [the worker’s] evidence that [she] was shocked by this meeting. She believed she was attending a normal management meeting at which she was told she was being dismissed and needed to find somewhere else to live.”
Although the employer continued to pay her minimum contracted hours, the Commission said this was not enough to undo the effect of the meeting or the language used in the letter.
“The [employer] did nothing to disavow [the worker] of this misunderstanding or make any attempt to restate its offer of alternative accommodation.”
The Commission concluded that this was indeed a dismissal, and that it occurred on 4 November 2024.
After the unfair dismissal claim was filed, the employer began a separate process to terminate the worker again. On 16 December 2024, she was sent a letter to “show cause” regarding an incident on 28 September 2024, where she was accused of physically pinning a resident.
The worker denied the allegation and said she had tried to calm the situation. She submitted her own note from the day, which stated:
“[The resident] came into the office & took a bag of chips… [The worker] said ‘[The resident] have already had a bag today, I will get you a healthier choice.’ [The resident] became argumentative + aggressive… [The worker] went outside for space.”
The employer acknowledged that no investigation was conducted until mid-December. The FWC noted that:
“[The manager] accepted in evidence that [they] did not directly interview [the witness], [the resident] or any other members of staff on shift that day prior to making [the] final decision.”
The FWC did not find the evidence sufficient to justify termination for serious misconduct, stating:
“I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the conduct [the worker] is alleged to have engaged in in fact occurred.”
The FWC found the worker had been unfairly dismissed, first through the letter on 4 November 2024 and again through the misconduct-based termination on 10 January 2025.
On whether she should return to work, the Commission said: “I do not consider reinstatement appropriate. [The worker] has not worked with the [employer] since 4 November 2024… the nature of [her] relationship with [the employer], clients in their care and their families have been damaged beyond repair.”
In considering compensation, the FWC calculated what the worker likely would have earned had her employment continued until 21 February 2025, estimating $3,281.40 in gross pay, plus $377.36 in superannuation. It also considered her loss of housing and difficulty finding new work.
The FWC concluded: “Taking all the circumstances of the matter before me into account, I am satisfied the level of compensation is appropriate.” The employer was ordered to pay the compensation within 21 days.
This case highlights the importance of clarity in communication when altering or ending employment arrangements, especially when housing is tied to a worker’s role.
