An aged care cook fired for not attending a mediation session that she had in fact attended has won an almost $68,000 unfair dismissal payout. The cook was emailed her termination of employment letter at the exact moment she was sitting in the voluntary session. During Fair Work Commission proceedings, her boss admitted that she had not directed the cook to attend and that no refusal had occurred. The Commission found that the conduct for which she was fired “simply did not occur.”
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Leoni Seychelles v Yass Valley Aged Care Limited [2026]. Later, we look at a very different case involving a Perth chef who abandoned his employment after threatening his boss with a meat mallet.
Case summary: Leoni Seychelles v Yass Valley Aged Care Limited [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission NSW.
- Key employer argument: The worker refused to comply with a mediation process, amounting to serious misconduct.
- Key employee argument: She had never been directed, only encouraged, to attend mediation, had agreed to participate, and was attending the first session when she was sacked.
- Fair Work outcome: Worker won unfair dismissal payout of $67,741.44 plus superannuation ordered.
Cook fired for ‘refusing’ mediation she was actually attending
Leoni Seychelles began working as a senior cook at Yass Valley Aged Care, a facility in regional NSW, in May 2023. She had 39 years of kitchen experience. According to the Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, Mrs. Seychelles’ relationship with her manager had deteriorated over time. Mrs Seychelles said she had faced workplace bullying by her manager from around June 2024 until August 2025.
In October 2024, Mrs. Seychelles lodged a written complaint against her manager with Yass Valley Aged Care chief executive Nicola Barnes. An internal review found the workplace bullying unsubstantiated. However, it did conclude that their conflict was caused by miscommunication. A subsequent external investigation by a solicitor also found the workplace bullying claim unproven, but recommended the duo attend facilitated mediation. This was voluntary, being “contingent on both parties agreeing to participate.”
‘Not in any way ready’: Cook resisted mediation push
Ms. Barnes raised mediation with Mrs. Seychelles multiple times over the following months. In March 2025, Mrs. Seychelles rejected the proposal outright. Then in August 2025, she emailed Ms. Barnes stating that her health professionals had advised she was “not in any way ready” to proceed with mediation. Mrs. Seychelles said this was due to the “anxiety that I am having just thinking about the process.”
A few days later, Ms. Barnes urged Mrs. Seychelles to take part, but did not direct her to. Mrs. Seychelles said words to the effect that she “didn’t really have a choice.” She went on to book a session with the external facilitator. She then joined the first confidential pre-facilitation meeting by video call at 3.17pm on 27 August 2025.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Fired while still on the mediation call
At 3.46pm that same afternoon, while Mrs. Seychelles was still in the session, Ms. Barnes emailed her a termination of employment letter. It stated that Mrs. Seychelles had refused to comply with her direction to engage in the facilitated process, amounting to serious misconduct.
Mrs. Seychelles received the termination notice while doing the very thing she was accused of refusing to do. That afternoon, she telephoned Ms. Barnes and said she had just finished the first session. However, Ms. Barnes did not reconsider the decision.
Why did the cook argue she had faced unjustified dismissal?
In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mrs. Seychelles sought compensation rather than reinstatement. This was due to the difficulty of finding alternative work after relocating from Canberra to Yass for the role, and the toll her sacking had on her health. She argued to the Fair Work Commission:
- She was never directed to attend mediation, only encouraged and urged to take part.
- Her hesitancy to engage reflected genuine anxiety, not obstruction, and was compounded by her husband’s serious accident.
- She had committed to the mediation process by late August 2025 and was actively attending the first session at the time she faced termination of employment.
In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Yass Valley Aged Care conceded that the stated reasons for the termination of employment were not made out. It accepted no direction had been given and no refusal had occurred. The employer instead argued that Mrs. Seychelles had shown a continued refusal to engage with mediation dating back to March 2025, and that her later responses were disingenuous. It also submitted she had brought about her own termination of employment by resisting the “only reasonable course of action.”
Why did Fair Work rule the dismissal unfair?
Mrs. Seychelles’ Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in May 2026. It ruled that her termination of employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable for the following reasons:
- There was no valid reason for termination of employment. The conduct for which Mrs. Seychelles was fired “simply did not occur.”
- The employer’s claim of a pattern of refusal was rejected, as Mrs. Seychelles’ attitude towards mediation had genuinely shifted.
- Mrs. Seychelles was never notified of the reason for her termination of employment, nor given any opportunity to respond. Both these points were accepted by Ms. Barnes under cross-examination.
- Had Mrs. Seychelles been afforded “basic procedural fairness,” it was “highly unlikely” her sacking would have occurred.
- The termination of employment had significant personal impacts. This included difficulty securing work in a small regional town and the effect on her health.
Given these findings, the Commission assessed lost remuneration at $135,482.88. It deducted Mrs. Seychelles’ earnings from subsequent casual work, arriving at $85,046.24 plus superannuation. As this exceeded the statutory compensation cap, the final amount Yass Valley Aged Care was ordered to pay her was reduced to $67,741.44 plus superannuation.
Chef threatened boss with mallet, then abandoned employment
Another recent unfair dismissal WA case that involved a chef is Samrat Kc v Eat House King Square Pty Ltd [2026]. It involved a Perth chef who threatened his boss with a metal meat mallet. Told his boss’s wife to “f**k off,” and later stopped attending work altogether. The chef argued he had been fired following the altercation with the wife. However, the Fair Work Commission found he had instead abandoned his employment, and that his conduct would have justified dismissal in any event.
Case summary: Samrat Kc v Eat House King Square Pty Ltd [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission WA.
- Key employee argument: He was sacked during a verbal altercation with his manager and sought compensation.
- Key employer argument: The chef had abandoned his employment before any termination took effect. In any event, his threatening conduct constituted serious misconduct.
- Fair Work outcome: Found the chef had abandoned his employment and his conduct would have justified summary termination of employment regardless.
Chef fired after mallet threat and eye-rolling at customers
Samrat Kc started working as the sole chef at Perth fast-food outlet Eat House King Square in April 2023. At the time of the events that ended his employment, Eat House employed just four permanent staff and two casual kitchen hands. On 22 September 2025, a dispute broke out between Mr. Kc, a kitchen hand and the manager and wife of owner Tony Hannawe, over the cleanliness of cutlery.
Mr. Kc initially claimed he responded “calmly,” but under cross-examination at the Fair Work unfair dismissal hearing, he conceded he had told Mr. Hannawe’s wife “f*ck off.” Mr. Hannawe intervened, telling Mr. Kc “you need to leave the shop for the day.” According to Mr. Hannawe, Mr. Kc replied that he would not leave and that “You’ll have to call the cops to get me out of here.” Mr. Kc did not leave and finished his shift as rostered.
Unfair dismissal WA: Chef removed belongings, then abandoned employment
Later that day, Mr. Hannawe was told that Mr. Kc had returned to the restaurant and taken all of his belongings. Mr. Hannawe later texted Mr. Kc asking him if he wouldn’t be coming to work the next day, but to no reply. When Mr. Kc failed to turn up for his shift the next day, Mr. Hannawe texted again: “Are u coming.” Again, there was no response.
Later that day, on 23 September 2025, Mr. Hannawe emailed him a termination of employment letter. The letter cited his failure to attend work without notice and “inappropriate behaviour that constitutes misconduct.” This included habitual lateness, refusing directions from female staff and rolling his eyes at customers. Mr. Hannawe also cited an incident where Mr. Kc threatened him with a metal meat mallet, which required a kitchen hand to restrain him.
Employer argued chef had abandoned employment
In response to Mr. Kc’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Eat House lodged a jurisdictional objection. The business argued that Mr. Kc had not been sacked at all, but had instead abandoned his employment. It submitted the termination email had been sent in error, since Mr. Kc’s employment had already ended by that point.
In the alternative, Eat House argued that if termination of employment had occurred, it was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. The business pointed to a pattern of misconduct culminating in the mallet-threatening incident.
Why did the chef argue he had been terminated?
Mr. Kc’s account of his alleged sacking shifted throughout the proceedings:
- In his original application, Mr. Kc described the altercation with Mr. Hannawe’s wife and being told to leave. He said that he “could see this coming” ever since he questioned Eat House King Square about his pay and entitlements.
- He changed his account in later submissions. Mr. Kc claimed he was told to leave specifically because he raised the pay concerns during the confrontation, rather than because of it. He alleged Mr. Hannawe told him to “f**ing leave” and that he “had to go.”
- In his witness statement, he changed his account again. Mr. Kc said Mr. Hannawe told him “you are finished,” which he understood as immediate termination of employment.
- In materials filed before the hearing, Mr. Kc implied he had left the workplace immediately after being told he was fired. Under cross-examination, however, he conceded he had in fact remained at work and completed his shift after the altercation.
Why did Fair Work rule that the chef had abandoned his employment?
The jurisdictional objection to Mr. Kc’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in January 2026. It threw out his claim for the following reasons:
- Mr. Kc’s evidence had “significant inconsistencies,” including changing accounts of the altercation and his rostering.
- Mr. Hannawe did not sack Mr. Kc during the altercation, but simply told him to go home to defuse the situation.
- Mr. Kc subsequently decided he no longer wished to work at Eat House, returning to collect his belongings, ignoring messages, and not attending his next shift.
- This conduct amounted to abandonment of employment, meaning there had been no termination of employment at the initiative of the employer.
- In the alternative, Mr. Kc’s pattern of misconduct, including the mallet threat on its own, constituted serious misconduct.
Fair Work unfair dismissal FAQs
1. Can you get fired for refusing to do something?
An employer can lawfully dismiss an employee for refusing to comply with a direction. However, this can only happen when the direction was lawful and reasonable, and the refusal genuinely occurred. Without both elements being established, there is no valid reason for termination of employment under section 387(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009.
In Leoni Seychelles v Yass Valley Aged Care Limited [2026], the Fair Work Commission found that no direction to attend mediation had in fact been given, only encouragement, and that Mrs. Seychelles had not refused to participate. Her employer’s own advocate conceded this during the hearing. As the Commission put it, the conduct she was fired for “simply did not occur,” meaning there was no valid reason for her termination of employment.
2. What classifies as abandonment of employment?
Abandonment of employment occurs when an employee’s own conduct demonstrates they no longer intend to continue working for their employer. This can include failing to attend rostered shifts without explanation, ignoring communication from their employer, or removing their personal belongings from the workplace. Where this occurs, there is no termination at the initiative of the employer, and the worker cannot pursue an unfair dismissal claim.
In Samrat Kc v Eat House King Square Pty Ltd [2026], the Fair Work Commission found that Mr. Kc had abandoned his employment after removing his belongings from the restaurant, failing to respond to his manager’s messages, and not attending his next rostered shift. As no termination of employment had actually occurred, his unfair dismissal claim was unsuccessful.
Read more: Employer’s ‘Contractor’ Excuse Backfires In $110K Dismissal Case
Have you faced unjustified dismissal?
Employees are often unaware of their full rights under Australian workplace law, and going up against an employer without support can turn into a minefield. Costs mount, income stops, and experienced employers know how to work the system against you.
We at A Whole New Approach (AWNA) have over 40 years of combined experience helping Australian workers use the Fair Work system to get justice. If you have faced unfair dismissal, forced resignation, discrimination, sexual harassment or another workplace rights vilation, we can help.
There’s a strict 21-day rule to lodge a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, so time is critical. Contact us on 1300 766 700 for your free and confidential initial consultation.
