She Was Fired While Sitting in the Mediation Session

At 3:17pm on 27 August 2025, Leoni Seychelles joined a Zoom call with a conflict resolution specialist. She had taken weeks to build up the courage to do it, and she was finally there.

At 3:46pm, her employer sent her a termination letter.

The reason given? That she had refused to participate in mediation.

The Fair Work Commission was not impressed. Neither should you be, if you are an employer. Because this case is a textbook example of what happens when a dismissal is rushed, poorly handled and factually wrong.

What happened

Mrs Seychelles was a senior cook at a regional aged care facility in Yass, NSW. She had 39 years of experience in commercial kitchens. She had complained repeatedly about her kitchen manager’s behaviour, and those complaints had been partially substantiated through an external investigation.

The employer’s response was to push mediation as the path forward. Mrs Seychelles was understandably hesitant. She had anxiety about the process, her husband had been hospitalised after an accident, and she was not convinced that sitting in a room with someone she believed had bullied her was going to help.

Over several months, she moved from outright reluctance to cautious acceptance. By late August 2025, she had booked herself into the first step of the process, a confidential pre-facilitation session with the mediator. She joined the Zoom call, a few minutes late due to technical issues, and was mid-session when the dismissal letter landed in her inbox.

She rang her CEO immediately to say she had just completed the session. The CEO did nothing to reverse the decision.

Three things the employer got badly wrong

The Commission found the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Here is why.

1. The reason for dismissal was factually wrong.

The employer said Mrs Seychelles had refused to participate in mediation. She had not. The employer’s own lawyers conceded this at the hearing. You cannot dismiss someone for conduct that did not occur.

2. Encouragement is not the same as a direction.

The dismissal letter claimed the employer had directed Mrs Seychelles to participate in mediation. The CEO admitted under cross-examination that she had strongly encouraged, but not directed, her to attend. That is an important distinction. You can only dismiss someone for failing to follow a lawful and reasonable direction if you actually gave one. Encouragement is not a direction, and the Commission treated those two things very differently.

3. There was no procedural fairness at all.

Mrs Seychelles was never told she was at risk of dismissal. She was never given the chance to respond to the allegation before the decision was made. The termination letter arrived without any prior warning meeting, no show cause process, nothing. The Commission noted that if basic procedural fairness had been followed, it is highly unlikely dismissal would have occurred at all.

The cost

The Commission ordered compensation of $67,741.44 plus superannuation. That was the statutory cap, meaning the actual loss calculated was higher. Mrs Seychelles had relocated her family from Canberra to Yass for this job. Finding new work in a regional town, in her 60s, was not straightforward. The personal and financial impact was significant, and the Commission took that into account.

What this means for employers

There are some clear practical lessons here.

• Never dismiss someone without putting the allegation to them first. Always give the employee the chance to respond before you make a decision. That is not optional. It is a basic requirement of procedural fairness under the Fair Work Act.
• Be clear about what you are asking. If you want an employee to do something as a condition of continued employment, say so clearly and document it. “I’d really encourage you to consider this” is not a direction. If you later rely on non-compliance as a reason for dismissal, that distinction will matter enormously.
• Mediation should be voluntary. The investigator in this case specifically recommended that mediation be contingent on both parties agreeing. Trying to force someone into mediation and then dismissing them for reluctance is not a defensible position.
• Verify the facts before you act. The employer knew within hours of issuing the dismissal letter that the stated reason was wrong. The decision to proceed anyway compounded every other error in this case.

Managing workplace conflict is genuinely hard. Interpersonal issues between employees can drag on for months and leave everyone exhausted. But the answer is not to cut corners on the dismissal process. The cost of getting it wrong, as this employer found out, can be significant.

Dealing with a difficult employee situation and not sure of your next step?

HR Gurus helps Australian businesses work through complex people issues in a way that is practical, defensible and commercially sensible. Get in touch at hrgurus.com.au.