Resources: Blogs

Vendetta, vendetta!


FWC finds attempted character assassination and confidentiality breach valid reasons for dismissal

Managing conflicting personalities can be one of the most challenging aspects of being a manager. Particularly when low level disagreements escalate to formal complaints, investigations, attempts at character assassination and breaches of confidentiality.

Managing conflicting personalities can be one of the most challenging aspects of being a manager. Particularly when low level disagreements escalate to formal complaints, investigations, attempts at character assassination and breaches of confidentiality.

These issues were recently traversed in the Fair Work Commission’s (FWC’s) decision in Lecaude v Westpac Banking Corporation T/A Westpac [2018] FWC 1969.

The employee in this case was dismissed after sending two emails to the manager of a separate team who was in the process of recruiting for a vacant position. The emails related to one of the employee’s co-workers with whom she had a difficult relationship and about whom she had made a formal bullying complaint.

In the emails, the employee claimed that:

  • There was an open HR case against the co-worker for his abusive behaviour towards her;
  • The allegations made by the employee about the co-worker were proven;
  • The co-worker was on probation as a result of his behaviour;
  • She was asked by her managers not to proceed with her complaint for the sake of the co-worker’s family and so that he could keep his job;
  • The co-worker was supposed to go through an anger management program; and
  • It was a “serious issue” if any manager supported the co-worker’s application for promotion and would be “even worse” if he got the job.

One of the emails also inferred that the co-worker was racist, abusive and harassing towards others.

Prior to the sending of the emails, a formal investigation had been conducted in response to the employee’s complaint. The employee was advised on a number of occasions, including in writing and in Westpac’s policies, that her complaint and the investigation were confidential and were not be discussed or disclosed to anyone.

On the basis that the employee’s emails contained false and damaging statements about her co-worker and breached her obligation to maintain confidentiality, Westpac dismissed the employee.

The employee then lodged an unfair dismissal application with the FWC on the basis that there was no valid reason for her dismissal.

The employee claimed that she sent the emails at a time when she was stressed and she did so in Westpac’s best interests. The employee submitted that she believed the statements in her emails were true, that Westpac’s policy was not to promote employees who were the subject of open HR cases and that she was concerned the promotion would mean her co-worker would become her superior and he would subject her to further mistreatment. The employee claimed that she was, in effect, whistleblowing.

Westpac argued that the employee was trying to get back at her co-worker after the investigation into her complaint resulted in her also receiving a formal warning. Westpac submitted that the employee’s belief about the truth of her statements could not be supported by the evidence and she was trying to mask her true intentions in sending the email, which were to damage the co-worker’s reputation and injure his chances of securing a promotion.

Westpac submitted that the employee’s actions were a conscious and deliberate violation of her obligation to maintain confidentiality in relation to her complaint and that in failing to do so, the employee fundamentally breached Westpac’s policies including its code of conduct.

The FWC considered the evidence of the employee, her managers and members of the HR team. The FWC concluded that it was self-evident that the employee set out to damage her co-worker’s prospects of succeeding in his application for promotion and this was a valid reason for dismissal. A further valid reason was provided by the employee’s conduct in breaching her confidentiality obligations.

On the basis that Westpac had also followed a fair and proper process, the dismissal was upheld by the FWC and the employee’s application was dismissed.

Lessons for employers
Confidentiality in relation to grievances, complaints, investigations and any outcomes is absolutely essential to ensuring a fair and reasonable process.

Where employees make complaints or are involved in an investigation, they must be explicitly directed to keep all matters related to the complaint or investigation confidential and advised that disciplinary action may be taken for failing to follow this reasonable and lawful direction.

Stressing the importance of confidentiality can help to minimise the impact of the workplace rumour mill and hopefully prevent those searching for drama from finding a platform.

If an employee then breaches their obligations in relation to confidentiality, the employer will have good reason to take disciplinary action.


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 unfairly dismissed for requesting family and domestic violence leave

Boiling point

All employees (including part-time and casual employees) will soon have the entitlement to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave per year under the National Employment Standards, replacing the existing entitlement to five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave.


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.