One day's notice, no genuine response opportunity, and a pre-made decision
On 30 March 2026, the Fair Work Commission ruled a Sydney employee's dismissal unfair despite real performance issues at a mid-sized financial services firm.
The case concerned Ms Zahro Safitri, a Customer Support Executive at International Capital Markets Pty Ltd, who worked there from early 2022 until her dismissal on 16 October 2025. Her role involved responding to client enquiries via email, live chat, phone and social media, and handling technical questions about the company's trading platforms. The firm said she was let go for ongoing performance problems, particularly punctuality, communication and availability.
The employer's concerns had a long paper trail. A formal written warning issued on 3 January 2024, which Ms Safitri signed, cited consistent lateness and failure to advise managers of her attendance times. Later that month she was placed on a three-month performance improvement plan, which identified communication issues around lateness, breaks and leave, and flagged that termination was a possible consequence of inaction.
A second warning letter dated 13 March 2024 related to an unapproved absence. The Commission was not satisfied it was actually given to her at the time and accepted that the leave was ultimately approved, supported by a medical certificate, and that she had returned to work by 14 March 2024. It did find against her on a related point, however: a text exchange in...
Welcome to Reality Check, NewsGuard’s nonpartisan newsletter that tracks the false claims and conspiracy theories that shape our world — and who’s behind them. Please support us by becoming a premi...