Resources: Blog

Casual swearing no excuse for conduct


A little less conversational swearing

There is no doubt that swearing in the workplace is unacceptable - the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has repeatedly held that swearing in an abusive manner that is directed towards others is a valid reason for dismissal.

There is no doubt that swearing in the workplace is unacceptable - the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has repeatedly held that swearing in an abusive manner that is directed towards others is a valid reason for dismissal.

Often employees seek to justify their use of coarse language by claiming that there is a culture of swearing in their particular workplace. Earlier this year, in Pridham and Rose v Viterra Operations Pty Ltd T/A Viterra [2019] FWC 1018, the FWC held that commonplace use of coarse language at a wharf was a relevant workplace culture consideration when evaluating whether allegations of inappropriate conduct involving swearing were actually inappropriate.

The FWC has again turned its attention to swearing in the workplace in a more recent unfair dismissal decision, Boris v Metcash Trading Limited T/A Metcash [2019] FWC 3993, where an employee argued that his swearing in a formal meeting was “conversational swearing”.

The employee was employed as a part-time storeperson for Metcash. In November 2018, the employee’s supervisor notified him on his day off that he wished to meet with him discuss his poor performance and to bring his nominated representative. The evidence provided that there was “historical antagonism” between the employee and his supervisor.

Metcash claimed that at the performance meeting, the employee was aggressive and used expletives when speaking. At one point during the meeting, the employee said to his supervisor: “Under no circumstances are you to contact me out of work hours for any reason whatsoever. If you ever harass me out of work hours again, I will tell you exactly what I think of you and your mother.” Metcash claimed that the employee said this in an intimidating manner and that the supervisor was offended and felt threatened, leaving the meeting shortly after.

The employee was dismissed for serious misconduct, with Metcash relying on the employee’s unacceptable conduct, including his conduct at the performance meeting.

In the proceedings, the employee admitted that he swore and made the comment about the supervisor’s mother. The employee submitted that he swore in conversation but that it was not directed to anyone and the workplace “was a robust work environment where people use intemperate language and tensions.”

Deputy President Beaumont noted that:

Apparently, ‘conversational swearing’ appears to be dialogue punctuated by the occasional or perhaps often cited profanity…I assume that the reference to ‘conversational’ is because the offensive words are buffered by a tone and voice volume that would otherwise be considered ‘conversational’. Hence, to speculate, such profanities become accepted part of the meeting vernacular because they are couched in such a way.

However, DP Beaumont dismissed the employee’s submission of justifying his conduct on conversational swearing, stating:

…I do not accept that ‘conversational swearing’, such as that which was engaged in by Boris, is acceptable conduct in a meeting where conduct issues are being discussed, or allegations are being traversed, or a person has been asked to show cause. Whether that person is the employee against whom allegations are made, or the person facilitating or running the meeting, makes no difference.

DP Beaumont held that the employee’s conduct, including his conduct at the meeting was in breach of the employer’s Code of Conduct and found that there was a valid reason for dismissal. She also found that the employee’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the employee’s application.


Lessons for employers

Employers should not tolerate swearing in the workplace. It can be very easy, where there is an acceptance of profanities or expletives in the workplace, for such language to also be used in a manner which is abusive or threatening to other employees.

There should be a consistent response by employers against the use of unacceptable language to send the message to all employees that such conduct is inappropriate. Managers and senior employees have a key responsibility of setting the example for the workplace so that swearing does not become part of vernacular.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.


Similar articles

No reasonable expectation of regular and systematic employment for casual employee

Great expectations

An employee will have access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction if they have completed a minimum employment period of six months (or 12 months for small business employers). Generally, service as a casual employee will not count towards the period of service needed to satisfy the minimum employment period unless they were a regular casual, and they had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis.


Expired COVID-19 schedules in modern awards removed

News Alert

In April 2020, the Fair Work Commission introduced temporary measures in modern awards in response to the need to provide employers and employees flexibility in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.


High Income Threshold increase from 1 July 2022

News Alert

From 1 July 2022, the high income threshold increased to $162,000 per annum.


Post-employment restraint found go beyond what is enforceable

There’s nothing holdin’ me back

It is not common for employment contracts to contain restraint of trade clauses which seek to prevent departing employees from joining competitors or using or disclosing their former employer’s confidential information.


Commission finds employee was dismissed despite “heat of the moment” resignation

Talk before the walk

One of the key elements of a procedurally fair disciplinary process is for the employee in question to be notified of the seriousness of the process (including the potential disciplinary penalties) and to be provided with an opportunity to respond to any allegations before a decision as to disciplinary action has been made.


Application to vary redundancy pay dismissed

No points for the assist

The entitlement to redundancy pay under the National Employment Standards of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is one which is intended to minimise the adverse impact of a redundancy on affected employees, such as loss of job security and the potential difficulties associated with obtaining new employment in the open market.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.