Resources: Blogs

Clarity

Blogs
|

FWC decision reminds employers about the need to be clear about termination dates

Fair Work Commission’s (FWC) Full Bench decision in Mohammed Ayub v NSW Trains [2016] FWCFB 5500 (Ayub Case) is a good reminder for employers about the need for clarity with respect to termination of employment and in particular when a termination is to take effect.

Fair Work Commission’s (FWC) Full Bench decision in Mohammed Ayub v NSW Trains [2016] FWCFB 5500 (Ayub Case) is a good reminder for employers about the need for clarity with respect to termination of employment and in particular when a termination is to take effect.

Mr Ayub lodged an application for unfair dismissal and there was a dispute between the parties as to the correct date of termination of employment. This was significant in terms of determining whether or not Mr Ayub was outside the 21 day time limit under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for lodging an unfair dismissal application and whether the FWC had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The FWC Full Bench stated that the “general principle” is that an employer must communicate to the employee using both plain language and show by conduct that the contract is terminated. Where communication is in writing, it must have been received by the employee in order for the termination to be effective.

In the Ayub Case, Mr Ayub was sent an email by NSW Trains on 18 January 2016 to his wife’s email address. Mr Ayub was not aware of his dismissal until 19 January 2016 when he saw and opened the email. The Full Bench found that Mr Ayub’s dismissal did not take effect earlier than 18 January 2016, despite NSW Trains making the decision on 14 January 2016, and the letter being dated 14 January 2016.

Employers are reminded of the following best practice tips as a result of the Ayub Case:

  • Specify how the letter is delivered to the employee (whether it is “by hand”, “by express post” etc). In the Ayub Case the letter was sent by email but was headed “delivered by hand”;
  • If a termination letter is sent to an employee in the post – make sure it is registered or couriered so that there is some evidence that the employee received the letter. In the Ayub Case the FWC made it clear that mere delivery of a document to an employee’s usual address would not constitute communication of a dismissal;
  • If an employer is sending the letter by email make sure a read receipt and delivery receipt is attached. It is worthwhile to make sure you have a current email address. It is also sensible to call the employee to let them know you have sent them an email;
  • If an employee is unable to be found, contact the next of kin for contact details of the employee or use other methods to determine their whereabouts (social media is often helpful);
  • Where an employee is dismissed with notice, the dismissal would take effect upon the last date of the notice period. This date must be clearly identified;
  • Where a dismissal is payment in lieu of notice, the dismissal must be clearly communicated to the employee so that he or she at least has a reasonable chance to find out that he or she has been dismissed.

A definite termination date, clearly communicated to an employee, will be of assistance when applications are made for unfair dismissal or adverse action where a strict time limit applies.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

FWC finds employer’s assumptions about employee’s capacity rendered dismissal unfair

You need to chill out

If an employer is questioning the capacity of an ill or injured worker’s ability to fulfil the inherent requirements of their position, they may consider testing the legitimacy of an employee’s prognoses and medical advice. In these circumstances, the employer should be aware of their obligations to the employee and the potential consequences of failing to satisfy them.

Read more...

FWC finds summary dismissal not warranted despite employee’s misconduct

A not-so serious problem

In the recent unfair dismissal decision of Carmody v Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 259, the FWC has clarified what will (or will not) constitute ‘serious misconduct’ warranting summary dismissal in the context of managing employee performance.

Read more...

FWC finds that employer dismissed employee who refused to sign new employment contract

Blank space

In its simplest form, an employment contract is a legally enforceable document between two parties where there is an offer and acceptance to be bound by its terms and conditions. Where an employment contract has been signed, it cannot be unilaterally changed by one of the parties – there must be agreement by both parties.

Read more...

FWC finds employer’s assumptions about employee’s capacity rendered dismissal unfair

You need to chill out

If an employer is questioning the capacity of an ill or injured worker’s ability to fulfil the inherent requirements of their position, they may consider testing the legitimacy of an employee’s prognoses and medical advice. In these circumstances, the employer should be aware of their obligations to the employee and the potential consequences of failing to satisfy them.

Read more...

FWC finds dismissal harsh and unreasonable given employer’s communication blunder of policy changes

Sliding into your DM’s

It is best practice for employers to ensure that their policies and procedures are properly communicated and understood by employees, especially in circumstances where the policy relates to important topics such as the health and safety of employees.

Read more...

Poor redundancy process results in successful workers compensation claim

Coffee catastrophe

There are a number of legal obligations and risks that an employer must consider when implementing any form of disciplinary or dismissal process. These are not limited to claims made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) but can also include the risk of claims made under anti-discrimination or workers compensation legislation.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required