Being dismissed via a text message is one of the harshest ways to get your marching orders. And it’s a callous act that often sees employers severely punished by the Fair Work Commission.
In this article, we’ll look at a 2025 unfair dismissal case that ended with a Sydney recruitment company being forced to pay nearly $50,000 to an employee fired over text. Not only had the boss treated the worker this way after 10 years of service. But also, the text came just after the worker had asked for a pay rise, with the boss admitting the worker had him “by the balls.”
We’ll also look at another recent case involving a panel beater, whose close friend and boss sacked him over text for taking legitimate sick leave. The boss didn’t give the worker any notice and later ended up copping a nasty bill from the Commission.
The following events were detailed in the Fair Work Commission case Ilias Kadji v Sigma Resourcing Pty. Ltd. [2025]. Sydney-based Ilias Kadji started working for recruitment agency Sigma Resourcing in May 2015. In February 2025, he emailed the company’s director to conduct a review of his pay. He had requested this review multiple times. The director responded to the request by stating, “You have me by the balls.” He also claimed the business was “struggling massively.” A modest $5,000 pay increase was offered and accepted.
However, when payday came around, Mr. Kadji noticed the promised increase had not happened. He emailed the director to complain about his history of “broken and false promises” when it came to his pay. A few days later, the director responded by falsely claiming Mr. Kadji was already on a higher salary.
He told him that his salary was a “f**king good base” and that he wouldn’t get a pay rise, asking, “Do you want to continue or not?” The director then blocked Mr. Kadji’s access to the company’s email system, preventing him from working or replying.
Over text, the director messaged Mr. Kadji saying that if they couldn’t have a conversation then “I think it’s time to terminate the employment. You agree?” He added that he couldn’t afford a pay rise. Mr. Kadji claimed that the director gave him an ultimatum in an attempt to “bully” him into accepting lower pay, or go find another job.
He replied saying that he wouldn’t resign as he hadn’t done anything wrong. Mr. Kadji pointed out that he hadn’t asked for a pay rise in over two years. The director responded by simply saying “Ok. I’m terminating you with immediate effect.”
Following his sacking, Mr. Kadji lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. He also filed a claim with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for almost $40,000 in outstanding entitlements. Also, a claim for unpaid long service leave with the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales.
Sigma Resourcing argued to the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Kadji hadn’t been dismissed. Rather, he had abandoned his employment or otherwise refused to attend work. However, the Commission ruled that Mr. Kadji had been terminated by the company and didn’t abandon his role. It also found that Sigma Resourcing didn’t have a valid reason for the sacking and that Mr. Kadji had been denied procedural fairness.
The Commission also considered Sigma Resourcing’s argument regarding its poor financial viability. It acknowledged the company was in financial distress, but said that it failed to provide sufficient evidence that a pay rise would impact the viability of its business.
Finding that Mr. Kadji’s dismissal was unfair, the Fair Work Commission considered his reinstatement to be inappropriate. It therefore ordered Sigma Resourcing to pay him compensation. The Commission accepted that paying compensation would negatively impact the company’s financial situation. However, it decided that this wasn’t a justifiable reason to lessen the amount.
The Commission determined that had Mr. Kadji not been fired he would have been in his job for a further six months. Taking into consideration his weekly wage and commissions, it was calculated that he would have earned $44,540, which included a 5% deduction for contingencies. In total, the Commission ordered Sigma Resourcing to pay Mr. Kadji $44,450.84 plus $5,111.85 in superannuation.
Given its financial struggles, the company requested to pay the amount over a 12-month period. However, the Commission said this was unreasonable given Mr. Kadji had been “abrupt[ly]” fired via text, despite his 10 years of service. Providing some relief to the company, the Commission ordered that the amount could be paid over a six-week period. However, if the company failed to comply with the payment plan, the amount would be payable immediately.
The Commission also noted that this payout would not affect Mr. Kadji’s other claims concerning his outstanding entitlements and unpaid leave.
Read more: Top Tips After Being Sacked or Fired
Another recent Fair Work Commission case that involved a dismissal via text is Mr. Jorge Borlandelli v Sydney Luxury Smash Repairs Pty Ltd [2025]. Jorge Borlandelli began working for Sydney Luxury Smash Repairs as a panel beater in October 2023. Prior to starting, he was good friends with its owner, Jackson Pierce. Mr. Borlandelli was earning $141,482.59 plus superannuation per year working for his friend.
But their friendship deteriorated a year into Mr. Borlandelli’s stint at the business, when he took sick leave. Just before 5am on 22 October 2024, he texted Mr. Pierce, “Morning Jacko I woke up with a lower back pain I can’t move, I won’t be at work today. I’m sorry.”
Mr. Pierce responded within minutes. “F**k sakes,” his text read. “You have so much f**king time off.” Mr. Borlandelli texted back saying that he could turn up to work but that he “can’t move.” Mr. Pierce responded by saying “Nah don’t worry,” telling him to take the day off and get better, but pointed out again that he has taken “too much” time off.
Mr. Borlandelli provided two separate medical certificates, covering his absence from 22 October to 26 October 2024. Despite this, on 24 October 2024 Mr. Pierce sent the final text message that served as the termination notice. “Don’t bother coming back,” his text read. “Just come pick up your tools on Saturday.” To this, Mr. Borlandelli simply replied, “Understood.”
Later that afternoon, Mr. Pierce texted, “Thanks. Sorry it’s come to this,” to which Mr. Borlandelli replied, “All good, no worries.” Following the termination, the friendship between the two men broke down completely. Mr. Borlandelli subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. He also filed a workers’ compensation claim and legal action regarding underpayment.
At Mr. Borlandell’s unfair dismissal hearing, Sydney Luxury Smash Repairs argued that he was not fired because he was injured. Rather, it was due to his pattern of “unauthorised” absences from work and his poor performance. The company provided a list of dates when Mr. Borlandelli was allegedly absent without permission. This list was compiled by Mr. Pierce’s wife.
However, under cross-examination, Mr. Pierce admitted that he had not reviewed the company’s records to verify these dates. He also admitted that some of them were incorrect. To support the poor performance claim, Sydney Luxury Smash Repairs presented testimony from four witnesses, one of which included Mr. Pierce. They spoke about instances of Mr. Borlandelli watching his phone on the job. They also highlighted that he had performed substandard panel-beating work that cost the business time and money.
Mr. Borlandelli argued to the Fair Work Commission that his absences were covered by valid medical certificates. He also went to the length of providing Google Maps data to refute some of the alleged unauthorised absences. He asserted that the real reason for his dismissal was his temporary absence due to injury, which is a protected reason under the Fair Work Act 2009.
Considering the arguments of both parties, the Commission found that there was no valid reason for Mr. Borlandelli’s sacking related to his capacity or conduct. It determined that the claims of unauthorised absences and poor performance were not substantiated. The evidence regarding absences was rejected as “vague hearsay evidence.”
The Fair Work Commission also dismissed Sydney Luxury Smash Repairs’ claim that Mr. Borlandelli had been performing poorly. It said that the company did not provide contemporary documentary evidence for this. Also, it highlighted the fact that Mr. Pierce did not mention Mr. Borlandelli’s poor performance in the termination text message.
The Commission concluded that the actual reason for the sacking was Mr. Borlandelli’s temporary absence due to injury. It said that Sydney Luxury Smash Repairs had attempted to “recast the reason” for Mr. Borlandelli’s termination after the event to help them defend against his unfair dismissal application.
In addition to this lack of a valid reason, the Fair Work Commission found that Mr. Borlandelli had been denied procedural fairness. The summary firing meant he was not notified of the reason for it before it happened. He also wasn’t given any opportunity to respond to concerns about his attendance or performance.
Having weighed all the factors, the Commission was satisfied that Mr. Borlandelli’s dismissal was unjust and unreasonable. The absence of a valid reason and the complete lack of procedural fairness were the primary reasons for this finding.
Mr. Borlandelli did not seek reinstatement. The Commission therefore ordered compensation. It determined that had Mr. Borlandelli not been unfairly dismissed, his employment would likely have continued for another six months, during which he would have been on workers’ compensation leave.
Because the workers’ compensation payments he received, totaling $55,513.42, were approximately equal to the remuneration he would have earned during that period, there was no lost income to compensate. However, the Commission also found that Mr. Borlandelli was unfairly sacked without notice. Therefore, he was entitled to compensation for two weeks of lost wages in lieu of that notice, as stipulated by the Fair Work Act 2009.
This amounted to $5,441.64 gross, with a further $625.79 awarded for superannuation. Sydney Luxury Smash Repairs was ordered to pay Mr. Borlandelli within seven days. While acknowledging the sacking was “extremely unfair,” the Commission noted that compensation orders are not intended to be a form of punitive punishment against employers.
Read more: Unfair Dismissal Because of Facebook
Have you been dismissed, harassed, or treated unfairly at work? Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives is here to give employees a voice. For more than 30 years, we’ve represented workers across Australia in unfair dismissal claims, workplace bullying, harassment, discrimination, redundancies and more.
With strict timeframes on many workplace claims, it’s vital to act quickly. Call 1800 333 666 today and take the first step toward justice.
