A unilateral decision by an employer to bring forward the effect of a tendered resignation by an employee will generally be regarded as a dismissal; thus
“Consideration
[14] Ultimately, it does not matter whether the email of 14 May 2025 or the discussions and text messages following that email constituted a resignation by Mrs Peymani. It also does not matter whether that resignation was voluntary or forced.
[15] This is because there is no dispute that on 2 June 2025 Ms Elzain asked Mrs Peymani not to come back to work. There is also no dispute that Ms Elzain removed Mrs Peymani’s access to Fresha around this date. The parties confirmed that a payment of unused annual leave was made shortly after this date.
[16] Mrs Peymani says that she has not worked for Posh N Polished since that date.
[17] By Ms Elzain’s own evidence, she made a decision to end Mrs Peymani’s employment
earlier than it would have ended if Mrs Peymani’s resignation had been effective.
[18] In a recent decision of Terex v Cameron [2025] FWCFB 205, the Full Bench said at [11]:
There have been numerous decisions that have recognised that an employer’s unilateral decision to bring forward an employee’s nominated termination date is a termination of employment ‘on the employer’s initiative’ … A resignation on notice that ends on the
employee’s nominated termination date is a termination of employment on the employee’s initiative. In that situation, the contract of employment and the employment relationship continues until the expiry of the period of notice in the absence of agreement that the termination date is to be brought forward. But if the employer then imposes an earlier termination date, the employment ends on its initiative.
[19] If there was a resignation on the 14 May, then the nominated termination date would have been mid-June.
[20] However, when Ms Elzain removed Mrs Peymani’s access to Fresha and asked her not to return to work on 2 June 2025, this brought forward that end date and was a termination of employment at the employer’s initiative. Therefore, Posh N Polished dismissed Mrs Peymani within the meaning of s 386(1)(a)
Conclusion
[21] As I have found that the employer dismissed Mrs Peymani, Posh N Polished’s
jurisdictional objection to the application is dismissed.
[22] I will now proceed to conference this matter, as required.”
Peymani v Posh N Polished Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2833 delivered 24 September 2025 per Tran C