Resources: Blog

Dismissed employee compensated despite vulgar language


Size doesn’t matter

Small business employer’s “disgraceful and grossly unfair” dismissal process has cost it over $10,000 in compensation.

A small business employer’s “disgraceful and grossly unfair” dismissal process has cost it over $10,000 in compensation, despite the Fair Work Commission (FWC) finding the dismissed employee had used language “so grossly vulgar” that it would have been sufficient grounds for his summary dismissal.

In Trialonas v Steric Solutions Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 3996, the FWC was required to consider the summary dismissal of a yard hand who had been employed with Steric Solutions Pty Ltd for over ten years.

The dismissal followed an incident on 6 December 2016 during which the employee called his manager (and the director of the business) a “back-stabbing c*nt” in response to her retort that he should “pull his head out of his f*cking arse”. Whilst the employee claimed this was ordinary language in that workplace, he apologised to his manager the next day.

The employee was not, however, dismissed for this language – his manager summarily dismissed him three days later, at the request of the business owner, allegedly because “you do not listen”. The employee was not given notice of termination or any statement setting out the reasons for his dismissal.

When the employee commenced unfair dismissal proceedings, his manager claimed the dismissal was for the following reasons:

  • The employee consistently used bad language towards her, calling her a “b*tch” and “c*cks*cker” and telling her to “go f*ck myself”;
  • The employee made her feel intimidated by ignoring her;
  • The employee committed serious safety breaches despite directions not to do so, such as strapping boards in the same manner that had previously caused him an eye injury, driving the forklift while she was standing next to him, using the fire hose on the factory floor causing it to become slippery, refusing to wear hearing protection and having his headphones in during work hours; and
  • His serious misconduct on 6 December 2016.

The FWC rejected these as valid reasons for the employee’s dismissal noting that:

  • The employee was allowed to continue work following the incident on 6 December 2016, with no hard feelings;
  • The manager and the employee seemed to have a friendly relationship with each other and she had in fact invited him to her home after the incident on 6 December 2016 and to the local pub; and
  • There was no evidence at all to substantiate the alleged poor performance and conduct.

In those circumstances, the FWC found the reasons for the dismissal were capricious, fanciful and even contradictory. Further, the FWC considered that, even taking into account the employer’s size and lack of industrial relations expertise, the employer could not be excused from the lack of procedural fairness it had afforded to the employee. This was made even more concerning considering the employee’s length of service.

The dismissal was therefore found to be unfair.

However, in assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded, the FWC said it would be “unrealistic” to ignore the incident on 6 December 2016 even if it was not the reason for the dismissal. Specifically, the FWC stated:

“Putting aside that the language was so grossly vulgar to have been inappropriate in any circumstances, the fact it was directed to a woman – and the applicant’s manager no less – is utterly inexplicable and unacceptable. In other circumstances, it would be sufficient grounds for summary dismissal.”

The FWC accordingly reduced the amount of compensation by 15% - to $10,695.20.

Lessons for employers

This case is a lesson on the importance of procedural fairness. It is one of the fundamental principles of the unfair dismissal jurisdiction and can be costly to employers who fail to heed the procedural fairness requirements – regardless of the seriousness of the employee’s misconduct or size of the business.


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

High Income Threshold increase from 1 July 2022

News Alert

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


Employer’s lack of procedural fairness rendered the dismissal of his employee harsh

No show cause

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), whether an employee’s dismissal was procedurally fair is a key factor in determining whether the dismissal was unfair. Procedural fairness requires an employee be given an opportunity to respond to or explain an allegation put to them by their employer. The employer must consider that response or explanation before deciding the disciplinary penalty – eg: a warning, or termination of employment.


An employer’s reminder to employee fails to count as a performance warning

The tough conversation

There are often misconceptions about how many times an employee must be warned regarding their poor performance before they are able to be dismissed. Although there is no legislative requirement stipulating the number of warnings required, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides that an employee must be warned about their unsatisfactory performance before they are dismissed for that reason.


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.