FWC Signals Simpler Approach to Employee Abandonment Cases

Employers are often faced with a difficult question when an employee suddenly stops attending work and fails to respond to communications: has the employee abandoned their employment, or does the employer need to take steps to terminate the employment relationship?

A recent Fair Work Commission (Commission) decision suggests that employers should exercise caution before relying on “abandonment of employment” arguments. In Haque v dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1698, Commissioner Crawford indicated that, in many cases, an employer’s actions may amount to a dismissal even where the employee has been absent without explanation for an extended period.

Key facts

Mr Haque commenced employment with dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd (Company) as a Cargo Service Delivery Agent in March 2025. During his employment, Mr Haque raised a number of concerns regarding the conduct of co-workers.

In August 2025, the Company separated him from another employee “after issues arose”. Matters escalated in December 2025 when Mr Haque reported “serious concerns” about the conduct of two employees towards a female colleague.

The following day, those employees complained that Mr Haque had been spreading rumours about them. After receiving those complaints, Mr Haque’s manager directed him to leave the workplace early while the matter was investigated. Importantly, the Commission later found there was some uncertainty about what would happen next. Mr Haque understood that the matter was still being investigated and that he would be updated in due course.

Mr Haque did not attend his next rostered shift and failed to respond to multiple attempts by the Company to contact him by phone and email.

In December 2025, the Company sent an email to Mr Haque stating that it considered his absence unauthorised and that, unless he provided an explanation within five working days, the Company would assume he had voluntarily resigned and his employment would be terminated accordingly.

Mr Haque claimed he did not read the email until after the deadline had passed. He subsequently lodged a general protections application involving dismissal.

Key findings

Had Mr Haque been dismissed?

Before the Commission could consider the merits of the claim, it needed to determine whether Mr Haque had actually been dismissed. Under section 386(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act), a person is dismissed if their employment has been terminated on the employer’s initiative.

The Company argued that Mr Haque had abandoned his employment by failing to attend work and communicate with them. It submitted that his conduct amounted to a renunciation of the employment contract and that the employment relationship therefore ended because of his actions, not because of any decision made by the Company.

This distinction was critical – if Mr Haque had not been dismissed, the Commission would not have jurisdiction to hear his dismissal-based general protections claim.

Abandonment in the context of employment contracts

The Fair Work Act does not explicitly define abandonment of employment, nor do Modern Awards. Rather, common law establishes that abandonment of employment requires an objective assessment of:

“whether the employee’s conduct is such to convey to a reasonable person in the position of the employer and based on the facts as reasonably known to the employer at the time, that the employee had repudiated their duty to meet their obligations under the contract of employment.”1

(emphasis added)

There are four components of the test, as outlined in Ally Hyde-Nawell v Children’s Rights Australia Limited [2024] FWC 30 and Orry Thompson v Zadlea Pty Ltd trading as Atlas Steel [2019] FWC 1687:

• An unexplained or unauthorised absence from the workplace.
• A reasonable period of time where the employee has been absent without explanation or authorisation.
• Whether there was any communication from the employee during the absence or the communication from the employee clearly displays an intention of not returning for work.
• Whether there was an enquiry by the employer in the time period when the employee was absent.

The Commission’s decision

Commissioner Crawford rejected the Company’s jurisdictional objection. While acknowledging previous Full Bench authority on abandonment of employment, the Commissioner expressed doubts about whether the concept of abandonment should operate to exclude such cases from the statutory definition of dismissal.

He observed that, in practical terms, employers dealing with prolonged, unexplained absences are usually making a decision to end the employment relationship because of the employee’s conduct.

The Commissioner suggested that treating these situations as employer-initiated dismissals is often a “much simpler and more efficient approach” than attempting to apply the complex contractual doctrine of renunciation.

The wording of the Company’s letter to Mr Haque was particularly influential. The letter stated that:

• The Company considered the absence to be unauthorised;
• The Company would assume Mr Haque had voluntarily resigned; and
• His employment would be terminated accordingly.

Commissioner Crawford held that this language demonstrated that the Company was the party making the decision about whether the employment relationship would continue. Commissioner Crawford also found that Mr Haque’s conduct did not amount to repudiation of his employment contract. While his actions indicated that a significant workplace dispute existed and remained unresolved, they would not necessarily have conveyed to a reasonable person that he no longer intended to be bound by his employment obligations.

The Commissioner ultimately concluded that, had the Company not taken the action it did, Mr Haque would have remained employed; his employment ended at the initiative of the Company and thus constituted a dismissal.

Key takeaways

This decision does not prevent employers from taking action where employees fail to attend work or become uncontactable. In fact, Commissioner Crawford expressly recognised that employers will often be “well placed” to justify termination decisions arising from prolonged unauthorised absences.

However, employers should take note that template abandonment letters that position the employer as the decision-maker can undermine a later argument that the worker resigned, particularly where the absence follows an unresolved workplace dispute.

Want to know more?

If you would like advice on any matters raised in this article, please contact NRA Legal on 1800 572 679 for a confidential conversation.

Mr Md Abdullah Haque v dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1698