What is the moment when an employee is dismissed?

What is the moment at which an employee is dismissed?
When will time begin Section 394(1) of the Act provides that a person who has been dismissed may apply for an unfair dismissal remedy and s.386(1) of the Act outlines when a person has been ‘dismissed’ as follows:
“(1) A person has been dismissed if:
(a) the person’s employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer’s initiative; or
(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.”
In Mihajlovic v Lifeline Macarthur, [2014] FWCFB 1070. a Full Bench of the Commission gave meaning to the term ‘dismissed’ and determined when it can be said that the employment of an employment terminated on notice ends, stating:
“…a person’s “employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer’s initiative” when the person’s employment relationship with the employer has ended, and that where the employee has been terminated on notice, the employment relationship ends when the notice period expires. Because s.386(1) defines when a person has been dismissed for the purpose of s.394(1), the same propositions apply to the meaning of the expression “A person who has been dismissed” in s.394(1). Section 394(1) therefore requires a person’s employment to have terminated in order for that person to make an application for an unfair dismissal remedy.” (my emphasis)
The question of when the employment relationship ends when an employee is terminated with pay in lieu of notice was considered by Chief Justice Wilcox in Siagian v Sanel Pty Ltd (Siagian). (1994) 54 IR 185. His Honour stated that the question of whether a payment in lieu of notice immediately terminates the employment is always one of fact but conceded that the parties will not have normally made their position clear, leaving the decision-making body to put its own interpretation on their actions. His Honour expressed the opinion that there is a prima facie position where parties use the words “payment in lieu of notice” and having considered a range of authorities, then said:
“In his work The Contract of Employment (1975) M R Freedland at 188 says:
“It would seem that a lawful termination by payment in lieu of notice normally results in an immediate termination of the contract of employment. The termination will not be projected to the end of the notional period of notice. The payment should be regarded as a lump-sum payment, equal to the amount of wages during the period of notice, rather than as payment of actual wages for a period of notice during which the services of the employee are not required. … It would seem also that termination with payment in lieu of notice will, in practice, be regarded as resulting in an immediate termination of employment for the purposes of liabilities of employer and employee to social security contributions. It would in general seem correct to hold that such payments in lieu of notice result in an immediate termination of the contract of employment because the payment is related to wages only in that these quantify the payment.”
I think these statements are justified by the authorities. It seems to me that, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intention, it should usually be inferred that the employer intended the termination to take effect immediately. This conclusion not only reflects the more accurate meaning of the phrase “payment in lieu of notice”; it accords with common sense. An employer who wishes to terminate an employee’s services, and is prepared to pay out a period of notice without requiring the employee to work, will surely usually wish to end the relationship immediately. If the employee is not to work, there is no advantage to the employer in keeping the relationship alive during the period for which payment is made; and there is the disadvantage that the employer will be burdened with employment related costs, such as workers’ compensation insurance, payroll tax, liability for leave payments etc. The employer also incurs the risk that some new burden will be imposed in respect of the employment during the period.” ……
It was noted by Hatcher VP in the initial Mihajlovic v Lifeline Macarthur [2013] FWC 9804. decision that:
“…A notice of termination of employment, once sent, cannot unilaterally be withdrawn. It follows that neither can it unilaterally be varied in a way which changes its effect. The notice takes effect in accordance with its terms, properly construed.” (references omitted)
The Vice President cited the decision of Gray J in Birrell v Australian National Airlines Commission (1984) 5 FCR 447, in which His Honour endorsed the principle that unilateral withdrawal of a notice of termination of a contract of employment is not possible. These authorities make it clear that when an employee is terminated with notice, the employment relationship ends when that period expires, unless there is mutual agreement to vary the agreement. While Bakersfield sought to vary the agreement that had been made regarding the notice period and handover, I find that mutual agreement to this variation was lacking.”

Colledge v Bakersfield Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Separovic Family Trust (2016) FWC 6707 delivered 16 September 2016 per Clancy DP