An employee was told to “go home” during a workplace dispute and believed she had been dismissed. The Fair Work Commission found otherwise.
An employee’s interpretation of words used in the heat of a workplace dispute will not necessarily determine whether a dismissal has occurred. A recent Fair Work Commission decision highlights the importance of looking at the objective circumstances and what happened after the disputed conversation.
In Ms Shuk Lan Wu v Tam Jai Aust Co Outlets Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2736, the Commission considered whether a part-time waitress had been dismissed after a workplace confrontation in which she was told to “go home”.
The dispute
The employee had been employed by Tam Jai Aust Co Outlets Pty Ltd since January 2025.
On 25 February 2026, during dinner service, a disagreement arose between the employee and the operations manager concerning a missing ingredient in a dish. The conversation became heated.
The employee said the manager behaved in an intimidating manner and asked her whether she still wanted to work there. She responded that, as the most senior person present, he could send her home if he no longer wanted her to work.
The manager then told her, in substance, “Go home now.”
The employee understood those words to mean that she had been dismissed. She subsequently returned her uniform, blocked the manager and left the workplace WhatsApp group. She also asked for payment in lieu of notice and her accrued annual leave and later sought her final entitlements.
The employer maintained that she had not been dismissed. Its position was that she had simply been directed to leave the workplace to de-escalate the situation and that she remained employed and rostered for work.
Was “go home” a dismissal?
The Commission found that it was not.
Importantly, the Commission did not consider the words “go home” in isolation. It considered the surrounding circumstances and what occurred afterwards.
The employer subsequently confirmed to the employee in writing that she had not been terminated and remained rostered for work.
The employee also provided a medical certificate covering a period of absence and participated in an investigation meeting arranged at her request. The Commission considered those actions to be inconsistent with the proposition that the employment relationship had ended on 25 February.
The Commission therefore found that the employee had not been dismissed.
What about forced resignation?
The employee also argued that, even if the employer had not expressly dismissed her, her resignation had been effectively forced by the employer’s conduct.
The Commission considered the principles in BUPA Aged Care Australia Pty Ltd v Tavassoli [2017] FWCFB 3941, including whether the employer intended to end the employment relationship or whether termination was the probable result of the employer’s conduct such that the employee had no real choice but to resign.
The Commission did not accept that this threshold had been met.
A single heated workplace confrontation, followed by the employer’s clarification that the employee remained employed, was insufficient to establish that the employment had ended.
The lesson for employers
The decision is a useful reminder that context matters when dealing with statements made during workplace disputes.
An employer may intend “go home” to mean exactly that — go home for the evening — while an employee may interpret it as “you are fired”. The consequences of that misunderstanding can be significant.
Employers should therefore be particularly careful about the language used when dealing with employees during difficult or emotional situations.
What employers should do
When an employee is told to leave the workplace during a dispute:
Be clear about what you mean. If the employee is being sent home temporarily, make it clear that this is not a termination of employment.
Confirm the position in writing. A prompt written confirmation can be important evidence of the employer’s intention.
Preserve the employment relationship. Where appropriate, maintain the employee’s roster and other arrangements consistent with the position that their employment continues.
Document what happened. Record the circumstances of the discussion, the words used, what was intended and any follow-up communications.
The case demonstrates that a single phrase spoken in a heated moment does not necessarily amount to a dismissal. However, employers should not rely on that outcome as a substitute for careful communication. Where employment status is potentially in dispute, clarity and prompt written confirmation are critical.
Case: Ms Shuk Lan Wu v Tam Jai Aust Co Outlets Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2736 (21 July 2026).
*This article is intended to provide general information only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specific advice should be obtained for individual circumstances.*
