WhatsApp Group Removal Not Considered Dismissal, Fair Work Commission Rules
The Fair Work Commission has ruled that removing an employee from a WhatsApp group and changing their system password does not constitute dismissal. The decision, handed down on March 20, 2026, dismissed an unfair dismissal application by Elizabeth Reardon against her employer, Olga De Polga Pty Ltd. Deputy President Masson found that no dismissal had occurred, and even if one had, no extension of time to file would have been granted.
Contested Employment Status and Timeline
Reardon, employed since July 9, 2024, claimed she was a full-time Marketing Manager without a written contract. Yet, Olga Stone, Director of Olga De Polga Pty Ltd, characterized Reardon as a casual Marketing Assistant earning $45 per hour. The Commission accepted the casual characterization, citing fluctuating work hours and the absence of paid leave entitlements. A formal annual leave application had previously been rejected.
The timeline of events leading to the dispute began on November 5, 2025, when Reardon obtained a medical certificate citing “Acute stress reaction and emotional distress secondary to workplace bullying and harassment, likely related to age discrimination.” Despite the certificate, covering November 6 to November 13, 2025, Reardon performed work on November 7 and 8, 2025, and did not provide the certificate to her employer until November 17, 2025. On November 8, 2025, Stone proposed reducing Reardon’s work week from five to four days with adjusted duties, which Reardon accepted on November 11, 2025.
Key Factors in the Commission’s Decision
Reardon’s claim for unfair dismissal was filed on December 18, 2025, thirteen days outside the statutory 21-day filing window. She had lodged a WorkCover claim on November 17, 2025, citing severe anxiety from a workplace incident on October 29, 2025, which was rejected on December 16, 2025. The Commission found that Reardon’s actions undermined her dismissal claim.
The Commission noted that no termination was communicated to Reardon, either verbally or in writing. Her decision to lodge the WorkCover claim and submit medical certificates on November 17, 2025, without addressing her employment status, suggested she believed she remained employed. The timing of the application was considered significant.
Regarding an extension of time to file, the Commission found no exceptional circumstances. Reardon’s medical evidence was weakened by her ability to complete the WorkCover claim during the period she claimed incapacity. She was aware of her alleged dismissal from November 14, 2025, providing her with the full 21 days to file her application.
Conduct and Communication Failures
The Commission likewise highlighted emails Reardon sent to supplier Digital Six on October 21 and 22, 2025, which were critical of the business and appeared to disclose confidential information. Even as no formal finding was made, such conduct could potentially constitute misconduct justifying dismissal.
The Commission was critical of both parties, stating, “Both the Applicant and Ms Stone are deserving of criticism for their communication failures.” It emphasized that the employer should have contacted Reardon to check on her welfare regardless of the WorkCover claim.
Implications for Employers
This case underscores the importance of clear communication regarding employment status. System deprovisioning and removing access to messaging groups during leave can create ambiguity, particularly without formal communication. Documented communication with employees remains essential, even when guided by legal advice.
Related reading