[2025] FWC 2996
Citation: [2025] FWC 2996
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
Robert John Wilson, 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 Wilson on February 26, 2025, that they disputed his workers' compensation and were proceeding to a hearing. On March 6, 2025, Wilson inquired about his employment status. Care Park responded, seemingly inviting him to resign. Wilson 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 Wilson’s application for unfair dismissal was filed within the 21-day time limit. The Commission rejected Care Park’s argument that the dismissal occurred on February 26, 2025. The Deputy President determined the date of dismissal was June 5, 2025, the date Wilson received the email confirming his termination. The jurisdictional objection raised by Care Park was dismissed, and the case will proceed to determine the merits of Wilson’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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
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