Resources: Blogs

Itsy Bitsy Teeney Weeney Yellow Polka Dot Bikini


Employee who visited non work related websites awarded $25,000 in compensation by FWC

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) highlights the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary matters.

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) highlights the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary matters. In our blog articles I’ll be there for you: the role of a support person in the disciplinary process, It’s all about the process: what to consider in the disciplinary process, It’s all about the process: the importance of procedural fairness and If I can be serious for a moment – getting serious about serious misconduct we discussed strategies for employers to minimise the risk of an employee bringing a successful claim for unfair dismissal.

The Applicant was employed for a car dealership (the Employer) since 2005 as the Financial Controller. The Applicant was aware of the Employer’s policies and procedures and had agreed to abide by them. The Policy and Procedure Manual included a section on intranet, internet and email use.

An employee complained that the Applicant had been watching inappropriate (non work related) material on his computer, and that she felt vulnerable and disturbed by the incidents. The employee was afraid that senior management would not believe her without any evidence, so she went on the Applicant’s computer whilst he was at lunch and took photos of his internet history and reported this to management (initial complaint).

When senior management had become aware of the situation the IT department reviewed the Applicant’s usage. The review found that the Applicant had accessed the internet 33 times for inappropriate material.

When asked about the websites, the Applicant admitted that he had done so during work time and agreed that he would not do it again. The Applicant was issued with a first and final warning as well as having his internet access restricted. The Applicant was also advised that if there were further breaches and misuse of the Company’s internet, his employment would be terminated.

A few months later, the employee complained again (further complaint) about the Applicant’s usage, which resulted into another investigation by the IT Department. It was concluded that the Applicant was now looking at lifestyle-type sites with women with little clothing on because he could no longer access certain (more explicit) websites.”

On 27 July 2015, the Applicant was called into a meeting where he was told that he had breached the policies and procedures manual again and advised that his employment was terminated as a result of his “serious misconduct”.

Commissioner Williams confirmed that the Applicant was aware that any further internet misuse could result in his employment being terminated and that using the internet to access a swimsuit website could constitute a misuse of the internet under the Employer’s policy and was therefore a valid reason for terminating his employment.

However, whilst there was a valid reason for termination, Commissioner Williams held the Employer did not afford the Applicant procedural fairness, in particular:

  • Management had already made the decision to terminate the Applicant’s employment before they had spoken to him about the reasons for the termination of his employment.

Employees must be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to a decision being made to terminate their employment. Once an employer has heard the responses, the meeting should be adjourned to allow the employer to consider those responses. Once a decision has been made, the meeting can be resumed and the employee advised of the outcome.


  • The Applicant was advised at the termination meeting that a further complaint had been made against him about contravening the internet policy and he was therefore being dismissed.

Employers are reminded that any investigation process is to be kept separate from the disciplinary process. In this case, the Applicant was not advised about the investigation or required to assist the investigation into the further complaint.


  • The Applicant was not notified of the specific reason for his dismissal.

In this case the employee was simply told it was “serious misconduct” whereas employers should always be specific about the reason for the termination.


  • The Applicant was not asked whether he had accessed the swimsuit website and was not asked whether he had an explanation for it.

This prompts the employee to respond to or provide an explanation for the situation.


  • There was no practical opportunity for the Applicant to obtain a support person if he so wished for one to be present.

An employee should be invited to a disciplinary/termination meeting with a reasonable amount of time to arrange a support person if they so require.


  • Despite being a large employer, there were no dedicated HR management specialists.

The Commissioner also noted that even though the employee who complained to the Employer about the Applicant’s computer access had accessed the Applicant’s computer without his knowledge, she was not disciplined for her actions.

Given the above, it was found that the Applicant’s dismissal was unfair and was awarded compensation in the amount of $25,341.13 gross for lost wages for four months.


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

Failure to warn employee renders dismissal unfair

Template lesson

Many businesses, and in particular small businesses employers subscribe to human resources information systems which offer access to template letters and policies to provide a ready-made solution or to manage human resources administration.


Employer’s withdrawal of role constituted dismissal from employment

Late withdrawal

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.


Employee’s exaggerated complaints created psychosocial risk

False alarm

Employers have work health and safety obligations to eliminate or minimise psychosocial risks in the workplace so far as is reasonably practicable. These risks arise from psychosocial hazards including conflict or poor workplace relationships.


First Intractable bargaining order made by the Full Bench

How did it end?

Enterprise agreement making under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires bargaining representatives to bargain in good faith. Under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission was provided with new powers to arbitrate and issue a workplace determination to resolve intractable disputes about terms and conditions of proposed enterprise agreement in circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the parties reaching an agreement.


Federal Court finds employee was not demoted due to his exercise of workplace rights

The final decision

Employees are protected from adverse action because they have exercised, or propose to exercise, the workplace right to make a “complaint” or “inquiry” in relation to their employment within the meaning of section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.


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 law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.