Digital roster changes on messaging platforms can legally constitute an unfair dismissal, according to rulings examined by Legal 500.
Employers utilizing applications like WhatsApp or Microsoft Teams to assign shifts face severe legal liabilities if they revoke an employee’s access to those core communication channels.
Changing laws affect how human resources and operational managers handle digital communication channels. Removing a worker from a scheduling group often serves as the decisive administrative act that terminates employment under statutory provisions.
The Kebab Shop Shift Dispute
The Fair Work Commission addressed these digital workplace dynamics in Fareshta Karimi v Aker Group Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 717. Ms. Karimi worked as a casual front-of-house employee at a kebab shop while completing high school.
On May 21, 2022, she messaged her employer via WhatsApp to state she could not work for several weeks due to school commitments. Subsequent disputes arose over allegedly unpaid wages. On August 10, 2022, after she requested a recalculation of her hours and maintained her underpayment claims, the employer removed her from the shift-allocation WhatsApp group.
Deputy President Millhouse said that under section 386(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), a dismissal occurs when employment is terminated on the employer’s initiative. The ruling established that an employer’s action can constitute a dismissal if it serves as the principal contributing factor ending the employment.
Baker Dismissed After Requesting Emergency Leave for Family Property Sale
A similar digital cutoff occurred in Bishwash Subedi v Crispy Bakehouse Co Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3612. The employee served as a head baker before booking a one-way flight to Nepal on June 22, 2025, to handle an urgent family property sale.
Before departing, the baker informed the Operations Manager that he required leave for up to ten weeks. The Operations Manager replied, “Well you already have the ticket, what else can we do?” according to the commission records. The employer advertised for a replacement baker the very next day.
The baker returned on July 10, 2025, and notified the employer on July 18 that he could resume work on July 21. The employer requested a meeting for July 22, but never confirmed the appointment.
Commissioner McKinnon found the employee was dismissed on August 2, 2025, when his access to the WhatsApp roster group chat was revoked in the absence of any response regarding the proposed meeting.
Implications for Workplace Platforms
While social media and messaging platforms offer operational convenience for shift work, these rulings highlight legal hazards. If an employee’s removal from a group chat occurs alongside circumstances indicating the end of the working relationship, unfair dismissal claims may follow.
Legal precedents establish that an employer does not need explicit intent to terminate employment if their actions produce that probable result, as noted in Jowett v Idrilling Australia [2023] FWC 2017. Employment Practices Liability insurers must now account for jurisdictional challenges where insured businesses claim no formal dismissal occurred simply because the termination was executed digitally via messaging apps.
