Employer argues it couldn't contact the worker for shifts
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a worker’s dismissal claim after he said he wasn’t offered any more shifts by his manager after he got sick.
Additionally, the worker claimed he had no intention of leaving his position, and if he had chosen to do so, he would have provided a resignation notice.
Meanwhile, the employer denied his termination and said it did everything it could to reach out to the worker. It said the worker repeatedly blocked the store manager on WhatsApp, so they couldn’t include him in the roster.
The worker started working at the employer’s store around September 2022. On 1 May 2023, the worker received a medical certificate indicating his unfitness for work from May 1 to May 5, 2023, which he shared with the manager.
On 2 May, the worker blocked the manager on WhatsApp. Subsequently, the latter messaged the worker, suggesting that he might also have 6 May off work. However, the worker did not respond to this message.
On the same day, the worker exited the store group chat where employee rosters were distributed, citing "bullying and harassment" as the reason.
Later that afternoon, the store manager messaged the worker, inquiring about his ability to access the roster, given his exit from the work group chat. Again, the worker did not respond to this message.
On 6 May, the worker received a second medical certificate indicating his unfitness for work from May 7 to May 12, 2023, which they shared with the store manager on 7 May 2023.
On the same day, the store manager requested the return of store keys while the worker was on sick leave to enable other employees to close the store. The worker unblocked the store manager around the same time.
On 18 May, Centrelink requested a separation certificate from the employer. On 26 May, the employer completed the separation certificate, citing "Employee ceasing work voluntarily" as the reason for separation. Later, the worker blocked the store manager again on WhatsApp.
The worker raised various concerns regarding workplace practices and the employer’s treatment.
On the other hand, the employer challenged the worker's dismissal claim, saying that the store manager had made efforts to contact the worker to inquire about their readiness to return to work, but received no response.
Moreover, the employer said they were only made aware of the worker's unwillingness to return to work through the separation certificate.
HRD previously reported about a worker’s dismissal claim, alleging she was kicked out from a WhatsApp group after requesting a few weeks off to study. The employer said there was no dismissal since it only wanted her to focus on her commitments at school.
In its decision, the FWC said the employer did not “take any action to dismiss him.” It said it was the worker who “took no steps to get back on the roster. He had taken active steps to block the store manager and to remove himself from the store group chat.”
The Commission also investigated the allegations of bullying and harassment, which the worker said caused him to leave the WhatsApp group, but the FWC said it did not find any evidence for his allegations.
“[While it is likely that the] relationship between [the worker] and his colleagues at the store deteriorated over time, it was not a relevant consideration as [the Commission is] satisfied that the [employer] was ready and willing to offer further shifts to the [worker] if he had merely contacted the store manager,” the FWC said.
“However, he chose not to do so,” it added. Thus, the Commission ruled that the worker was not dismissed and rejected his application against the employer.
