[2025] FWC 2996
Citation: [2025] FWC 2996
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a Parking Patrol Officer, was employed by Care Park Pty Ltd from January 15, 2024. He was injured at work in November 2024 and subsequently had a dispute regarding workers' compensation. Care Park’s lawyers advised the Applicant on February 26, 2025, that they disputed his workers' compensation and were proceeding to a hearing. On March 6, 2025, the Applicant inquired about his employment status. Care Park responded, seemingly inviting him to resign. the Applicant found an email dated June 5, 2025, in his junk folder, stating his employment was terminated, and filed an unfair dismissal application on June 26, 2025.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant’s application for unfair dismissal was filed within the 21-day time limit. The Commission rejected Care Park Pty Ltd’s argument that the dismissal occurred on February 26, 2025. The Deputy President determined the date of dismissal was June 5, 2025, the date the Applicant received the email confirming his termination. The jurisdictional objection raised by Care Park Pty Ltd was dismissed, and the case will proceed to determine the merits of the Applicant’s unfair dismissal claim.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure clear and timely communication regarding employment terminations. Invitations to resign, without a formal acceptance, do not constitute a termination. Employers should also be mindful of the importance of delivering important notifications in a way that ensures employees receive them, rather than relying on junk email folders.
What it means for employees
Employees should regularly check all email folders, including junk folders, for important communications from their employer. Promptly responding to communications regarding employment status can help ensure compliance with time limits for lodging unfair dismissal claims.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc2996.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →