A 70-year-old parking inspector dismissed for abandonment of employment after he suffered an injury while issuing a ticket has walked away with over $8,000 at the Fair Work Commission. After months of silence from his employer — including no response to an email asking whether he was still employed — the worker was left in limbo before being terminated. The Commission found that this was not a case of job abandonment, but rather “troubling and inexcusable” indifference by the employer, amounting to an unfair dismissal.
In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal VIC case Robert John Wilson v Care Park Pty Ltd [2025]. We also look at another recent case of abandonment of employment that saw a Perth worker’s unfair dismissal claim thrown out by the Commission.
Seventy-year-old Robert John Wilson started working for Launceston, Tasmania-based Care Park as a full-time parking patrol officer in January 2024. The events leading to his termination of employment began on 15 November 2024. This was the day Mr. Wilson was hit by a vehicle while issuing a parking ticket at York Town Square in Launceston. Hospital examinations revealed a torn meniscus in his left knee. In the months thereafter, Mr. Wilson lodged a workers compensation claim and submitted several certificates of capacity. These confirmed he had “no current capacity” to perform any work.
The situation was complicated by legal and medical disputes. On 30 December 2024, police issued Mr. Wilson an infringement notice for causing a traffic hazard as a pedestrian during the accident. Simultaneously, a conflict emerged regarding his health. During Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, Care Park claimed that Mr. Wilson’s wife reported in January 2025 that he was suffering from “severe” memory loss. She also allegedly told the company that he was becoming “very aggressive” and had “dementia.”
Abandonment of employment: Workers comp payments ceased after employer complained
Mr. Wilson’s wife later disputed these specific claims. She said that she told Care Park that “Robert is forgetting things” and that he was having “mood swings.” His wife also told the company that his condition improved significantly after he stopped taking specific sleep medication in late February 2025.
On 11 February 2025, Care Park told Mr. Wilson that they were disputing liability for his workers compensation. Following a hearing a few weeks later, the Tasmanian Civil & Administrative Tribunal issued an order that stopped his weekly payments. In March, Mr. Wilson subsequently emailed Care Park’s general manager asking for confirmation in writing if he was no longer an employee. The general manager replied saying that if he chose to resign, the company would arrange a payout of his unused annual leave.
Dismissed for abandonment of employment via email in junk box
Mr. Wilson did not resign and received no further contact from Care Park until 23 June 2025. This was when he discovered an email in his junk folder received around three weeks earlier. This email stated that due to his “extended absence” from work and the outcome of his workers compensation claim, Care Park will proceed with his termination of employment. His dismissal would take place immediately. This occurred the same day his court summons for the traffic hazard was dismissed after police elected not to tender evidence.
Employer argued worker had abandoned his employment
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Wilson argued that there was no valid reason for his dismissal and that he had been denied procedural fairness. He maintained that he never intended to leave his role and was waiting for Care Park to discuss the “way forward” following the tribunal decision. He highlighted that he was left in a “conundrum” or “catch-22” regarding new work in the NDIS sector. This was because he required an employer to endorse his accreditation, which he could not obtain while his employment status remained in limbo.
Meanwhile, Care Park contended that Mr. Wilson had effectively abandoned his employment. They argued that his lack of responsiveness after his exchange with the general manager justified their decision to terminate his employment. Care Park submitted that they believed Mr. Wilson was unable to fulfil his duties and that he had “no foreseeable return to work.” They maintained that the employee bore the responsibility of proving he was fit to return to his duties.
Unfair dismissal VIC: Abandonment of employment argument quashed
Mr. Wilson’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in December 2025. It rejected Care Park’s abandonment of employment argument. The Commission explained that the test for job abandonment is whether the employee’s conduct would convey to a reasonable person that they had repudiated their contract. Mr. Wilson’s March email where he asked for confirmation if he still had his job was seen as a clear attempt to clarify his status. The Commission said that Care Park’s response was a “non-response” that left the worker in a state of uncertainty.
The Commission found no valid reason for the dismissal. It said that Care Park should have sought updated medical information rather than remaining silent for three months. The decision noted a “troubling and inexcusable” disinterest on the part of Care Park regarding the welfare of Mr. Wilson. It was also found that the company had not provided Mr. Wilson with the opportunity to respond to any reason for his dismissal prior to it taking place. The Commission noted that he found out about his termination of employment via an unsigned email discovered in his junk folder.
Awarded huge unfair dismissal payout
The Fair Work Commission therefore ruled that Mr. Wilson’s dismissal for abandonment of employment had been unfair. It decided that reinstatement was inappropriate as Mr. Wilson was transitioning into aged care. The Commission therefore ordered Care Park to pay Mr. Wilson $8,125.92 in compensation. This included a 25% reduction because the Commission was not satisfied that Mr. Wilson had reasonably tried to “mitigate his loss.” It was noted that Mr. Wilson had only earned $300 from two music “gigs” and had not been “particularly assiduous” in searching for work beyond one specific organisation.
Tradie dismissed for abandonment of employment
Another recent case that involved abandonment of employment, but ended in a different result for the employee, is the unfair dismissal WA proceedings Dean Underwood v Aushield Pty. Ltd. [2025]. Perth-based Dean Underwood worked for sandblasting business Aushield. In January 2025, he was placed on a performance improvement plan. A primary requirement of this plan was a “significant improvement in attendance rates at work”. Despite this, Mr. Underwood’s attendance declined further. In May 2025, he was absent for six unpaid days out of 22 scheduled working days.
On 4 June 2025, Mr. Underwood texted his manager saying that he would not be attending work. He did the same for the next two days. Then on the following Monday, Mr. Underwood sent a final text message confirming he intended to return to work on Wednesday. He said that he planned to speak with Aushield’s general manager upon his return.
Dismissed for abandonment of employment
However, Mr. Underwood did not turn up to work on Wednesday. He did not make any other attempts to communicate with Aushield. Following his failure to appear, the company sent an email to Mr. Underwood’s private address. This address was regularly used for issuing pay slips. Aushield asked him to get in contact with them regarding his absence. It warned that if no contact was made within four days, he would face termination of employment by reason of abandonment of employment. Aushield did not receive any response from Mr. Underwood, so he was dismissed on 17 June 2025.
He subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, arguing that he had not intended to abandon his employment. He submitted that he had been “suffering” from significant mental health and personal health issues. Mr. Underwood claimed that these hindered his ability to engage with Aushield. While he provided four medical certificates to the Fair Work Commission, these were found to relate to earlier absences rather than the specific period leading to his dismissal.
Argued that employer already decided to terminate employment
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Underwood further contended that Aushield failed to adequately notify him that his employment was at risk due to continued absences. He testified that he did not see the warning email until the morning his response was due. Mr. Underwood said that upon reading it, his “mental health suffered.” He said that he chose not to reply because he believed the decision to terminate his employment had already been finalised. He argued that the circumstances did not justify a finding of abandonment of employment.
Meanwhile, Aushield argued to the Fair Work Commission that the dismissal was a necessary response to Mr. Underwood’s failure to attend work or communicate for an extended period. The company pointed out that it did not have a dedicated human resources professional and that it had made reasonable efforts to make contact with Mr. Underwood. Ausheild asserted that the lack of communication led them to the fair conclusion that it was a situation of abandonment of employment, which impacted its operations.
Fair Work: Mental health struggles no reason to stop communicating
Mr. Underwood’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in November 2025. It accepted that he had been experiencing significant health struggles. However, the Commission said that that did not mean Mr. Underwood could “simply stop engaging” with Aushield about his lack of attendance without expecting potentially negative outcomes. His repeated failure to attend work or respond to Aushield’s emails was deemed a sufficient basis for the employer to conclude there was an abandonment of employment. The Commission therefore found that there was a valid reason for the dismissal.
Regarding procedural fairness, the Commission found that Ausheild’s actions were adequate. It stated that sending an email to an employee’s personal email address, particularly one used for communication previously, is a reasonable way for an employer to notify an employee that their employment is at risk. The Commission noted that Aushield provided two full business days and a weekend for a reply. This was considered a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations of abandonment of employment.
Abandonment of employment ruled, Fair Work unfair dismissal claim thrown out
The Fair Work Commission took into account the fact that Aushield lacked specialist internal human resources capabilities. Despite this, the Commission recognised that the business had made “considerable effort” to ensure workplace relations matters were responsibly recorded and managed. Ultimately, the Commission ruled that Mr. Underwood’s dismissal was a case of abandonment of employment. It therefore was not deemed to be unfair and Mr. Underwood’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was rejected.
Have you been unfairly dismissed?
A Whole New Approach (AWNA) assists employees across Australia with workplace disputes, including unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination and sexual harassment claims. With over 20 years’ experience, our specialist workplace advisors provide clear, confidential advice and practical support to help you understand your rights and options.
We handle each matter personally, taking the pressure off you during an already stressful time. If you’ve been dismissed or treated unfairly at work, acting quickly is essential as strict time limits apply to Fair Work claims. Contact us now on 1300 766 700 for a confidential and free discussion about your situation.
