Employer argues worker replied with, 'Thank you, I accept' in offer
A worker recently filed a request to extend his unfair dismissal application before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), arguing that he was “taken aback” by his termination notice that was sent by email.
He said the letter was “unanticipated,” but the employer said he was able to express his agreement with the offer with his reply. The FWC then probed into the facts of the case to determine if they had indeed reached a “settlement agreement.”
The worker, Lydon McKay, held the position of quality manager with his employer, Blend and Pack Pty Ltd, in April 2018.
Fast forward to May 2023, he received an email notification informing them that their employment would be terminated with one month's notice, ending on 31 May 2023.
This notification was sent within the body of an email, accompanied by a termination letter. Furthermore, the worker was instructed to remain accessible for the transition of job responsibilities. The parties continued to exchange emails after the initial notice.
McKay's said that when he received the email notification of his employment termination, he said he was “taken aback” and that it was wholly “unanticipated.”
He said there had been no prior conversations or warnings regarding his performance or any issues that might have led to his dismissal. Furthermore, he had received no indication that his employment was “at risk.”
From the worker's perspective, the termination of his employment was unjustified. However, after going through the parties’ submissions, the Commission found that McKay did contest the termination but, ultimately, reached an arrangement with the employer.
In its decision, the FWC went on to discuss that an agreement is a “settlement agreement” when it has the following key elements:
The documents showed that McKay's reply to the employer's email said, "Thank you for the email. I accept this offer." The Commission said that this reply satisfied the first two elements: “the intention to be bound”; and “an acceptance of the offer.”
It added that at the time the arrangement was established, the worker believed it effectively addressed his primary concern regarding his employment termination.
HRD previously reported about a worker’s claim that she was unfairly dismissed, adding that she was not notified of her dismissal since she had no access to her email account or her phone because she was in police custody.
The Commission said that it had “much sympathy for the difficult position that McKay finds himself in,” adding that “had he been better advised, he may have expended his valuable time and energy to achieve what it is that he is seeking.”
However, it said that there were no exceptional circumstances to extend his claim. Thus, the worker’s claim was dismissed.
