the Applicant v Tam Jai Aust Co Outlets Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2736
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked as a part-time waitress for Tam Jai Aust Co Outlets Pty Ltd, a hospitality business, starting on January 13, 2025. On February 25, 2026, she had a confrontation with the Operations Manager, during which he told her to 'go home'. the Applicant interpreted this as a dismissal and took actions such as returning her uniform, blocking his contact, requesting termination payments, and sending an incident statement. The respondent claims the Applicant was instructed to leave temporarily due to a disagreement and that she remained employed.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act. The Deputy President found that the Applicant was not dismissed by Tam Jai Aust Co Outlets Pty Ltd, either directly or through conduct forcing her resignation. While the Operations Manager told her to 'go home', this did not constitute a termination. Subsequent actions by both parties, including communication about future shifts and a medical certificate, supported the finding that she remained employed.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure clear communication regarding employee status, especially when addressing disagreements or temporary absences. Instructions to leave premises should be carefully worded to avoid misinterpretation as termination. Maintaining contact with employees after such incidents can help clarify their employment status and prevent misunderstandings.
What it means for employees
Employees should seek clarification from employers if they are unsure about their employment status following an incident. Documenting all communication is important, but interpreting ambiguous instructions requires careful consideration of the overall context and subsequent actions by both parties.
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/2026fwc2736.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 →