Employment relationship goes stale after bakery dismissal backed by FWC

A bakery employee has not been successful in his pursuit of an unfair dismissal after taking last-minute leave and subsequently being removed from the organisation’s rostering group chat on WhatsApp.

A head baker has not satisfied the Fair Work Commission that his dismissal was unfair after requesting almost six weeks’ leave for a family emergency in Nepal the day before he was due to fly.

Having allegedly heard he was needed overseas to help family with a property sale, the applicant informed his rostering manager at Crispy Bakehouse Co (CBC) of a need to travel to Nepal the following day, where he was told to “just go … tell [operations manager] and [owner]”.

The applicant allegedly requested annual leave from 24 June to 2 August on a leave form.

Hearing of the request that day, the bakery’s operations manager allegedly told the applicant: “Well, you already have the ticket, what else can we do?”

At the conclusion of that day’s shift, the bakery owner, who had previously discussed the travel plans with the operations manager, allegedly said “goodbye” to the applicant in assumption he had decided to quit.

The bakehouse soon sought to fill the role.

On his early return to Australia on 10 July, the applicant allegedly contacted Crispy Bakehouse’s owner and operations manager to resume work, and was allegedly told that the owner wished to discuss the matter with him.

This initially discussed meeting was not confirmed by either party, but the applicant was removed from a rostering group chat on 2 August, which he understood as a dismissal.

Commissioner Sarah McKinnon found the dismissal to be valid because “the evidence does not establish that the absence from work was approved”, with the reason for dismissal being the applicant’s failure to show up for work.

“It is not enough, but also not correct, to say that [the baker] was not ‘told no’ … he ‘was going’, whether the leave was approved or not,” McKinnon said.

It was noted that the applicant’s leave balance was not sufficient for the requested time, nor was he entitled under his award to take leave in advance. And while claiming he would be happy for the period to be taken without pay, this was not clarified at the time of application.

It was further clarified by McKinnon that the rostering manager did not provide initial approval for the leave, and that requesting the owner and operations manager to be involved put the applicant on notice “that the leave would need to be approved … because of the short notice of leave (less than one day) and the length of the proposed leave period (six weeks)”.

It was clarified by McKinnon that the operations manager did not approve the leave.

According to McKinnon, “a reasonable person in [applicant’s] position would understand that this might have put his ongoing employment at risk”.

“The [applicant] had received prior warnings for performance issues, and I reject his submission to the contrary. [The applicant] had been admonished by [owner] about truancy, lateness and performance issues as recently as 4 June 2025,” the commissioner said.

Claiming at the time to have been caring for his sick wife, which was accepted at the time by the owner, this was later disproved by medical certificates showing different dates.

The matter of the alleged family emergency was also contested, with McKinnon noting: “[The applicant’s] travel to Nepal was in connection with a property sale, and it is unclear why this would be considered an emergency.”

Finally, it was noted that “the message exchange between [the applicant] and [the owner] indicates a relationship continuing but under strain,” with [the owner] “frustrated at what he saw as constant truancy, lateness, product complaints, hygiene issues, and failure to meet production targets”.

Despite the fact that notice for the reason of dismissal was not provided, and the applicant did not have a chance to respond to the reason for termination, it was found that, on balance, “the procedural failings must be seen in light of circumstances that were largely of [the applicant’s] owner making”.

McKinnon said: “I am not satisfied that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.”

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.