A decision to award a Tasmanian employee more than $8,000 after being sacked for calling in sick with a hangover sends a "confusing message" to employers, Launceston's Chamber of Commerce says.

A decision last week by the Fairwork Commission ruled Tassal employee Avril Chapman's sacking was valid but harsh and awarded her $8,229 in compensation.

Ms Chapman left the following message with her employer on April 25 this year:

"Hi Michelle, it's Avril one of your most loved pains in the arse. "Um, its ANZAC day, my birthday, and I admit I have over-indulged so I'm taking into account one of the golden rules be fit for work and I'm not going to be fit for work so I won't be there. But um love ya, catch ya on the flip side."

In its decision, the commission said the conduct of the employee was not in dispute and the reason for dismissing Ms Chapman was valid.

However, she was awarded $8,229 compensation because the termination was considered to be harsh.

Ms Chapman, who was employed in a Tassal fish factory for five years, was accused by the company of "using a golden safety rule to excuse or justify her behaviour in consuming alcohol to an extent that she anticipated she would be unable to work the next day."

Ms Chapman said it was fatigue which led to the phone call because she felt she was not able to fulfil her role at work safely.

The commission found there was a valid reason for dismissal, saying she "placed herself voluntarily in a position where she was unable to work by reason of the consumption of alcohol."

"This was in circumstances where she could have gone to bed early to sleep and put herself in a position to work," the commission found.

The commission said her conduct led to her own downfall but the company had "misused a prior warning as a reason to proceed to termination rather than a less severe sanction."

Decision creates doubts for bosses

Neil Grose says employers should not have to pay compensation if sacking was valid. ( Rose Grant )

The Launceston Chamber of Commerce's Chief Executive Officer Neil Grose said the decision was confusing for employers.

"There's certainly a lot of mixed messages coming from the Fair Work Commission with a decision like this," he said.

"On one hand the commission says that the company acted properly in dismissing the employee, but on the other hand awards over $8,000 because they saw the decision as being harsh."

Mr Grose said awarding compensation was inappropriate if an employer has acted appropriately.

"Our understanding is that there had been a history of this sort of behaviour, that the employee in question had been counselled before and had received a warning before," he said.

"Either the dismissal is unfair or it's not, and clearly it wasn't unfair because the commission agreed that she should've been dismissed, but then to award such a large payment on top of that is something the chamber finds very inappropriate."