- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in Australia
- with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence, Business & Consumer Services and Consumer Industries industries
A simple admin change on WhatsApp may expose employers to unfair dismissal claims.
Employers who use WhatsApp, Teams, or other platforms to roster employees for work need to be very careful removing employees from those groups, following two decisions of the Fair Work Commission, which found such actions amounted to dismissal.
Fareshta Karimi v Aker Group Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 717
Ms Karimi was employed as a casual employee providing front of house duties at the employer's Kebab shop. She was a high school student.
On 21 May 2022, she sent the employer a message through WhatsApp advising that she would be unable to work for the next few weeks because she needed to focus upon her schoolwork.
After this message was sent, the parties had various exchanges about wages the employee claimed were owed to her. On 10 August 2022, she sent a message to her employer requesting that her working hours be recalculated and maintaining her contention that she had not been fully paid. That same day, the employer removed the employee from the WhatsApp group established by it for the purpose of allocating shifts to employees.
Deputy President Millhouse noted that, pursuant to section 386 (1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), a dismissal occurs where a person's employment has been 'terminated on the employer's initiative'. Her Honour stated there may be a dismissal, pursuant to this section, where the actions of the employer are the principal contributing factor leading to the employment termination.
Her Honour found that the employer's action in removing the employee from the WhatsApp group was the principal contributing factor that ended the employment. It was significant that the focus of communications between the parties, either side of the termination date, related to the employee's underpayment concerns.
Bishwash Subedi v Crispy Bakehouse Co Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3612
The employee was employed as a head baker by the employer. On 22 June 2025, he booked a one-way plane ticket to Nepal, following a request that he come home urgently to assist with a property sale.
On his last day of work before departing, the employee spoke to the Operations Manager of the employer and advised him of his need to take leave to attend to an emergency at home and advising that he could be away for up to 10 weeks. The Operations Manager replied: 'Well you already have the ticket, what else can we do?' The following day, the employer advertised for another baker.
The employee arrived back from Nepal on 10 July 2025 and, on 18 July 2025, the employee advised the employer he was able to start work on 21 July 2025. The employer responded by stating there were things to discuss. A meeting was proposed for 22 July 2025, but was never confirmed by the employer. The employee did not return to work.
On 2 August 2025, the employee saw that his access to the WhatsApp roster group chat had been revoked.
Commissioner McKinnon found the employee was dismissed when he was removed him from the WhatsApp roster group chat and noted this occurred in the absence of any response to the employee's message to the employer about a meeting on 22 July 2025.
Implications
While social media platforms can be a very convenient way to communicate with employees, these decisions demonstrate their use for rostering arrangements can be problematic. If employees are removed from those groups, and the surrounding circumstances indicate that the employment has come to an end, the employee may be able to bring an unfair dismissal or general protections application.
It is not necessary that the employer intended to terminate the employment if the actions of the employer had that probable result (Jowett v Idrilling Australia [2023] FWC 2017).
The decision should also be of interest to Employment Practices Liability insurers, because their insureds may raise jurisdictional objections in Fair Work Commission applications, claiming there was no dismissal when employees are removed from rostering platforms.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
