Employer accepts resignation but behavioral concerns develop during notice period
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a jurisdictional question involving a beauty salon manager whose employment ended after submitting what she described as a business proposal, but the employer treated it as a resignation.
The case arose when the worker sent an email in May 2025 outlining pay and commission options with a conditional resignation threat, leading to workplace tensions and the employer's decision to terminate the employment relationship earlier than originally agreed.
The worker argued her email constituted a business proposal rather than an actual resignation, while the beauty salon owner maintained she had accepted the worker's resignation and agreed to a four-week transition period.
However, citing concerns about the worker's behavior during the notice period, the employer decided to end the employment two weeks early rather than allowing the full transition period to mid-June.
Workplace tensions escalate after conditional resignation email
The worker was employed from September 2024 to manage the beauty salon business and introduce new treatments, receiving both salary and commission payments in the small enterprise, which employed approximately six staff.
In May 2025, dissatisfied with her compensation arrangements, the worker sent an email to the owner presenting two options for improved pay and commission structures.
The email concluded with a conditional statement that if neither option aligned with the employer's expectations, the worker was "prepared to submit my 4-week notice of resignation and begin a smooth transition."
The worker maintained that this constituted a business proposal rather than an actual resignation, while the employer interpreted it as a resignation with conditions.
Following the email, the employer immediately restricted the worker's access to the salon management software and removed her certificates, citing concerns about protecting financial information.
These actions created additional workplace tension and supported the worker's argument that she was being pushed out rather than voluntarily resigning.
Employer accepts resignation but disputes develop
The employer met with the worker following the May email and verbally accepted what she considered the worker's resignation, stating she could not agree to the proposed compensation options due to affordability constraints.
Text message exchanges confirmed discussions about a four-week exit period with employment ending around mid-June 2025.
During this period, the employer advertised to replace the worker's position, which the worker viewed as evidence of being forced out.
However, the worker also attempted to retract her resignation through multiple meetings where parties discussed her continued employment and revisited salary and commission arrangements.
The evidence revealed ongoing back-and-forth communications where the worker expressed a desire to remain in the business while asking the employer not to act on her resignation.
These contradictory positions created uncertainty about the worker's actual intentions and the employment relationship's status during the notice period.
Behavioral concerns prompt early termination decision
The employer testified that during the notice period, the worker exhibited counterproductive behavior with an angry demeanor that negatively affected workplace operations.
Other staff members reportedly complained about the worker's conduct, creating additional management challenges during what should have been a transition period.
Based on these behavioral concerns, the employer decided to end the employment relationship at the two-week mark rather than allowing the full four-week notice period to run until mid-June.
On June 2, 2025, the employer completely removed the worker's system access and instructed her not to return to work.
The employer processed final payments, including unused annual leave entitlements and salary, to the termination date, treating the early ending as a variation of the original resignation arrangement rather than a dismissal.
The worker confirmed she had not worked for the business since that date.
Employer's unilateral decision to terminate
The Commission referenced the recent Full Bench decision in Terex v Cameron, which established that an employer's unilateral decision to bring forward an employee's nominated termination date constitutes termination at the employer's initiative, regardless of the original resignation circumstances.
This principle applies even when employers have legitimate business reasons for varying notice periods.
The legal analysis focused on whether the employment ended on the employee's chosen date or an employer-imposed earlier date, rather than the validity or voluntariness of the original resignation.
If a resignation was effective, the nominated termination date would have been mid-June, making the June 2 termination an employer-initiated dismissal.
The Commission found that by removing system access and prohibiting return to work on June 2, the employer brought forward the termination date from the originally agreed mid-June timeframe.
This action constituted dismissal within the meaning of the Fair Work Act, regardless of the underlying resignation circumstances.
FWC: Is it dismissal?
The Commission dismissed the employer's jurisdictional objection that no dismissal had occurred, finding the worker was dismissed when the employer unilaterally brought forward the termination date.
This determination allows the matter to proceed to conference under the general protections provisions to address whether the dismissal breached workplace laws.
The ruling provides important guidance for small businesses managing resignations and notice periods, emphasising that unilateral changes to agreed transition arrangements can create dismissal liability even when employees have submitted resignation notices.
