The case centred around whether the employee was actually dismissed or had abandoned her position, underscoring the complexities that can arise when workplace communication breaks down.
Background of the Case
The employee, who began working as a casual “all-rounder” in April 2024, had previously been a regular player at the bingo centre. Her duties ranged from operating machines to catering and eventually calling bingo games once she was fully trained. Initially, she was satisfied with her job and appreciated the support from both her colleagues and management.
However, things took a turn for the worse during her second week on the job. The employee was confronted by a coworker about her belief that she could continue playing bingo despite her employment. This confrontation left her feeling uncomfortable, leading her to contact the business owner’s wife to express her concerns and request not to be scheduled to work with the coworker involved in the incident.
Despite her request, she was later scheduled to work alongside the same coworker in the kitchen, which led to further conflicts and heightened tensions.
The Disputed Phone Call
The crux of the dispute occurred on May 4, 2024, when the employee, distressed by the ongoing situation, called the business owner and his wife. During the conversation, she expressed that she had experienced a panic attack due to what she perceived as unfair treatment and a lack of support from her colleagues.
The employee claimed that during this phone call, the business owner told her that she was “the wrong person for the job” and abruptly ended the conversation. The business owner, however, denied making these statements, asserting that he simply advised her to call back once she had calmed down.
Following the call, the employee sent a text message to the business owner, expressing her distress and indicating that she felt she had been dismissed. This text message became a pivotal piece of evidence in the case, as the business owner could not adequately explain why the employee believed she had been dismissed if he had not said so during the call.
Ruling and Employer’s Conduct
The Fair Work Commission found the employee’s account of the events more credible, especially considering the content of her follow-up text message. The FWC concluded that the business owner had, in effect, communicated to the employee that she was no longer suitable for the job, leading her to believe she had been dismissed.
Adding to this, the employer’s subsequent actions—or lack thereof—reinforced the notion of dismissal. The business owner did not respond to the employee’s text message or attempt to clarify her employment status. Even when the employee failed to attend her next scheduled shift, no one from the company reached out to her. This lack of communication further solidified the employee’s belief that her employment had been terminated.
The FWC ultimately determined that the employee had been dismissed under the Fair Work Act, stating that the employer’s conduct, both during and after the phone call, led the employee to reasonably believe that her employment had ended.
Key Takeaways
This case serves as a critical reminder for employers about the importance of clear and consistent communication in the workplace, particularly when addressing conflicts or potential terminations. The decision highlights that a dismissal can occur not just through explicit words but also through subsequent actions or inactions by the employer.
Employers must be mindful of how their words and conduct might be interpreted by employees, especially in sensitive situations. Failing to provide clarity or follow-up can lead to misunderstandings that may have serious legal implications, as seen in this case.
