Zheng vs the Typhoon: A Modern Day Termination Disaster

| February 5, 2026

In a Fair Work Commission decision handed down on 3 November 2025¹, it was found that the dismissal of a Victorian employee was unfair after they failed to respond (while off the grid in China) to an all-staff compliance order during their absence.

The Applicant in the matter, Ms Fang Zheng, commenced casual employment as an early childhood educator in November 2022 and was allegedly terminated on or around 5 August 2025 by her employer, Guardian Community Early Learning Centres (Guardian) for failing to respond to an all-staff directive to sign a ‘Suitability Declaration’. 

The Termination Process: What Went Wrong

The sequence of events are as follows: 

• The direction from Guardian was issued  in mid-July 2025, and all staff were required to respond immediately.  

• Guardian sent a reminder email to Ms Zheng on 23 July 2025, as she hadn’t responded. The reminder stated Ms Zheng’s employment would be terminated if she did not respond. 

• On 29 July 2025, Guardian gave Ms Zheng a final warning that her employment would be terminated if she didn’t respond within 24 hours. 

• On 4 August 2025, Ms Zheng was sent an email asking her to complete an exit survey given her employment had ended.  

• On 5 August 2025 Ms Zheng was able to access her emails in reply to the email of 4 August stating she was overseas, and due to very limited reception, and had not seen the emails until that day. She also clarified there was no intention to ignore the emails, and she enjoyed working at Guardian. 

Commissioner Redford considered whether Guardian had a valid reason to terminate Ms Zheng as she had not followed the lawful and reasonable directive of management to sign the ‘Suitability Declaration’. 

However, despite Commissioner Redford observing that Ms Zheng had pursued an incorrect channel to submit her annual leave application (through her local manager instead of central management) he said that Guardian should have rather queried her “deafening silence” over email by way of central management contacting the local centre to see why she had not responded to the management direction and the email communication. 

What the FWC Found

Commissioner Redford found, having regard to s387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 the termination was unfair. 

Having regard to established case law² on what is a valid reason for termination; being a valid reason for dismissal should be “sound, defensible or well founded” and it should not be “capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced”,  the Commissioner held that: 

• There was insufficient evidence of “clear and unambiguous” communication from Guardian that Ms Zheng’s employment had terminated on 30 July 2025; 

• Ms Zheng’s “flurry of emails” to Guardian on 5 August 2025 supports the notion that up until then she was unable to respond to Guardian’s request; 

• Ms Zheng’s casual status did not diminish Guardian’s obligation to send a clear and unambiguous communication about termination of employment; and 

• Guardian did not have a valid reason for terminating Ms Zheng’s employment.  

The absence of a valid reason rendered the termination to be unfair. 

Commissioner Redford ordered Guardian to: 

• Reinstate Ms Zheng’s employment to the position she held immediately prior to the dismissal; 

• Maintain the continuity of her employment; and 

• Pay Ms Zheng compensation in the amount of 11 weeks’ lost remuneration (minus a 10% discount), totalling $11,940.20 plus superannuation   

Key Takeaways for Employers

This decision serves as a timely reminder that termination decisions must be: 

• well-founded;  
• well-informed; 
• justifiable; and  
• based on proper communication. 

As evidence in this Decision, employers need to (1) Be fully informed about the circumstances that exist and may lead to termination of employment – the why, how and what, and, (2) where necessary, proactively take reasonable steps to find out the why, how and what via follow-up communication. 

An interesting observation from the Commissioner was that although Ms Zheng did not submit her annual leave through the correct channels meaning Guardian did not have proper awareness of her leave status, Guardian could have taken steps to ascertain why Ms Zheng had not responded to the directive. He also said that Guardian should have considered other alternative explanations rather than regarding her silence as a wilful act of non-compliance. 

This may have avoided the situation Guardian found itself in, which was to take termination action that was not well founded, well informed or justifiable.  

Where are your staff?  

Another valuable lesson for employers here is knowing where your staff are at all times, especially if your Company operates in multiple locations. It may be valuable to implement a protocol for applying for leave through a centralised location or system, so that staff may be properly accounted for and supervisors can explain why a staff member may not have responded to a company directive.   

Such a protocol can include a requirement that casual employees notify their employer of dates they are not available to work.  

Looking Ahead

This case is a reminder that even well-intentioned directives can lead to unfair dismissal claims if the process isn’t handled properly. Clear communication, fair procedures, and awareness of staff availability are critical—especially when dealing with remote or casual employees.

If you need guidance on handling employee availability, termination processes, or compliance obligations, IRiQ Law can assist with practical, tailored advice to help you reduce risk and stay compliant. Contact us to learn more.

Footnote

¹ [2025] FWC 3202. 

² Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 [373].