Employee received conflicting verbal and written information about dismissal
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently examined an extension application that revealed critical risks when employers provide inconsistent termination communications.
The case arose when a sales representative was verbally told his employment was ending immediately but received written documentation suggesting a later termination date, creating confusion about when the dismissal actually took effect and leading to procedural complications.
The worker was verbally informed on 5 May 2025 that he was dismissed and not required to return to work, but the written termination letter stated his employment would end on 12 May 2025. This discrepancy between verbal and written communications created uncertainty about the effective dismissal date, which became legally significant when determining application filing deadlines under employment law.
The employer maintained that the dismissal took effect when the worker was verbally informed and told not to return, while the worker argued that the written documentation indicated a later end date. The case demonstrates how inconsistent termination messaging can create unnecessary legal disputes and procedural complications that could be easily avoided with clearer communication protocols.
The employment relationship involved a worker employed as a sales representative for nine weeks during a probationary period...
The offshore world has always attracted strong opinions. It’s complex, global, and full of moving parts that most people don’t fully understand. Mix that with online anonymity and you suddenly hav...