A press operator sacked by text message three days after her employer bought the business has been awarded $19,877.51 gross in compensation, payable within 28 days.
Deputy President Butler issued the decision, [2026] FWC 3637, on 23 September 2026. The respondent, Zeve Investment Group Pty Ltd, trades as Stafford Dry Cleaner. Neither the company nor its witness appeared at the hearing on 2 July 2026, and the applicant’s evidence was uncontested.
At a glance
- Parties: A former press operator and Zeve Investment Group Pty Ltd t/a Stafford Dry Cleaner
- Citation: [2026] FWC 3637 (U2025/15985), Deputy President Butler, Brisbane
- Sections: Fair Work Act 2009 ss 311, 384, 385, 387, 392, 394 and 600
- Outcome: Dismissal found harsh, unjust and unreasonable; $19,877.51 gross compensation ordered within 28 days
- Who it affects: Casual employees transferring with the sale of a business, and small business purchasers
The email two days before the hearing
The hearing was listed for 2 July 2026 and notice of the listing was given on 21 May 2026. The Deputy President had allowed that long period of notice after the company’s director told a case management listing that being away from the business for a day would cause the small business problems.
On 28 June 2026 the director wrote to chambers saying he had tested positive for COVID-19 and asking to appear remotely. Chambers refused on 30 June but invited him to reapply with a statutory declaration or medical certificate, and asked the applicant for her view. She said she would consent to a remote appearance if medical evidence were provided. The director did not reply to that email.
At the hearing the applicant tendered an email the director had sent her on the evening of 30 June 2026, from the same address chambers had used that day. It read in part: “Haha, after the 2nd July I no longer have to see, hear your [insults redacted] face ever again. You can’t put a price on peace”. The email went on to tell her she would be broke and miserable even if her claim succeeded.
Why the case was decided without the employer
Section 600 of the Fair Work Act allows the Commission to decide a matter although a person directed to attend has not done so. After the hearing, the director wrote apologising and saying he had been “admitted to the hospital due to a severe asthma attack, which was compounded by my recent battle with COVID-19”. Chambers asked him to provide proof of the diagnosis or hospitalisation. He replied that the Commission did not employ or pay him, and in a further email wrote: “I must respectfully decline to provide further medical evidence, as I consider my medical privacy of utmost importance.”
Deputy President Butler found there was no evidence the director had been incapacitated or hospitalised, said his email of 30 June “casts some doubt” on whether his representations could be taken at face value, and concluded the company had been given a fair chance to be heard.
Service under the previous owner counted
in its outline that the applicant’s continuous service under the business’s previous proprietor did not transfer automatically to the new ownership, and that its employment relationship with her began on 2 October 2025, after settlement.
was that she started at Stafford Dry Cleaners in April 2022 as the press operator, usually rostered Monday to Friday, 9:00 am to 3:00 pm.
assets had transferred before the dismissal, which amounted to a transfer of business under s 311 with the applicant a transferring employee. Under s 22, service with the old employer counts unless the new employer gives the employee written notice, before the new employment begins, that it will not be recognised. There was no evidence of any such notice, so the applicant had completed the minimum employment period, the qualifying service required before an unfair dismissal claim can be made.
The Deputy President also found she worked as a regular casual with a reasonable expectation that her employment would continue on a regular and systematic basis, and that her earnings were below the high income threshold, the annual earnings level above which a non-award employee cannot claim unfair dismissal.
A warning, an apology, then a dismissal
- 2 Oct 2025 Employment with the new owner commenced following settlement.
- 3 Oct 2025 The applicant went home after a new employee was allocated her duties; a heated phone call followed, then a written warning by text five minutes later.
- 4 Oct 2025 The applicant apologised by text.
- 5 Oct 2025 Dismissed by text, effective immediately.
- 6 Oct 2025 Dismissal confirmed; application filed.
- 2 Jul 2026 Hearing held in Brisbane; the respondent did not appear.
- 23 Sep 2026 Decision issued.
The dismissal text cited a lack of available hours and “instances of unprofessional behaviour, including abrasive communication, walking out on the job when you were rostered and demands that were not aligned with our workplace standards”.
The Deputy President accepted the conduct of 3 October 2025 was a valid reason for dismissal under s 387(a), despite mitigating circumstances. She found the applicant was not notified of that reason in explicit, plain and clear terms before the decision to dismiss was made, and was given no opportunity to respond. The claimed lack of available hours was not established. The employer’s small size and the absence of any dedicated human resource expertise each weighed against a finding that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The dismissal text came a day after the applicant had apologised for walking out.
The Respondent’s conduct in issuing a warning, receiving an apology the next day, and then giving notice of dismissal with immediate effect the day after, was manifestly unreasonable.
Weighing the s 387 criteria, the Deputy President was satisfied the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
How $35,438 became $19,877
Reinstatement was inappropriate, the Deputy President found, having regard to the director’s conduct towards the applicant before the hearing, the alternative employment she had since obtained, and the fact that she did not want reinstatement. The employer had claimed she was not covered by any award, but her last payslip described her as a “Level 5 Dry Cleaning Casual” at $35.15 an hour, the Level 5 casual rate under the Dry Cleaning and Laundry Industry Award 2020 at the relevant time.
Applying an average of 20.26 hours a week across an anticipated period of employment of 65 weeks, the Deputy President assessed likely lost remuneration at $53,317.89. She deducted $12,723.68 earned since the dismissal, leaving $40,594.21, then applied a 3 per cent discount for contingencies, which allow for the risk of unexpected setbacks over that period, reducing the figure to $39,376.38. A further 10 per cent reduction for the misconduct that contributed to the decision to dismiss brought it to $35,438.75.
Section 392(5) then capped the award at the lesser of the applicant’s remuneration for the 26 weeks before the dismissal and half the high income threshold, which stood at $183,100.00 immediately before the dismissal. Her remuneration for those 26 weeks was $19,877.51, and the compensation was reduced to that amount.
$19,877.51gross, less tax, payable within 28 days
The decision turns on a point that arises whenever a small business changes hands. A purchaser that does not tell a transferring employee in writing, before the new employment starts, that service with the old employer will not be recognised inherits that service for the purposes of the minimum employment period. The company had the worker on its books for three days when it dismissed her, and was answerable for about three and a half years of service.
Source: [2026] FWC 3637
General information only. OnNotice reports developments in Australian industrial relations, human resources and workplace law. This article is for education purposes only and is not intended to form professional advice. Always confirm against the primary source and seek specific advice relating to your circumstances.