Resources: Blogs

Message not received

Blogs
|

FWC upholds dismissal of employee for sending harassing messages and emails to his manager

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

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

When considering these hazards, it is important for employers to be mindful that such conduct is not limited to conflict amongst peers or from managers to their reports, but also conduct from employees that affects their managers.

In the recent unfair dismissal decision of Pawelczyk v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2024] FWC 2115, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found that an employee’s misconduct was in breach of workplace conduct policies, and also created a psychosocial risk to his manager and to other employees, and therefore amounted to a valid reason for dismissal.

The employee was employed as a Customer Engagement Specialist with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the Employer).

Between November and December 2023, the employee sent his manager roughly fifty messages which the FWC characterised as disrespectful and indicated a clear disdain for his manager’s ability, his desire for her to lose her job, and even became threatening. Most of the messages were sent during out of work hours in the early hours of the morning or late in the evening.

According to the employee, the reason for sending these messages was because he was unhappy with the support that his manager provided him. The messages cited several instances where he alleged that his manager was deliberately working against him.

In addition to this, following an unsuccessful interview for an internal role in December 2023, the employee sent a series of emails to senior employees of the Employer in which he questioned the integrity of the interviewer, spoke ill of other candidates, and also of his manager.

In January 2024, the employee made a formal complaint against the manager. In the complaint he suggested that the manager should be fired or demoted and that it would be an “act of compassion” to “put her out of her misery” because she was “clearly out of her league”. The text messages came to light during the course of the Employer’s investigation into the employee’s complaint.

The employee was subsequently issued with a letter detailing allegations of bullying and serious misconduct relating to the messages sent to his manager and the emails he had sent to other senior employees. His employment was ultimately terminated in March 2024.

Before the FWC, the employee claimed that his dismissal was unfair because his messages were misinterpreted, and also because they occurred outside of working hours.

The FWC disagreed with the employee’s submissions that the messages related to out-of-hours conduct. The FWC found that the Employer had in place policies relating to employee conduct and that those policies made it clear that the Employer’s rules around conduct applied at all times when an employee was interacting with other employees.

The FWC was satisfied that the conduct occurred because of the work relationship between the employee and the manager, and the subject matter of the messages would likely to give rise to a psychosocial risk in the workplace.

Turning to whether the messages fell within the meaning of “unacceptable workplace conduct”, the FWC stated that it was clear that the messages were deliberate and personally targeted towards the employee’s manager. The content, frequency and timing of the messages were also intended to cause harm and “made her feel threatened for doing her job”. The FWC went further to say that towards the end of his employment, part of the employee’s motivation was for his manager to lose her job.

The FWC noted that the Employer had an obligation to protect its interests and protect other employees, including employees higher in the workplace structure, from the adverse effects of an employee’s misconduct. In this regard, the employee repeatedly sought to “minimise his conduct by repeatedly belittling and then blaming [the manager] for decisions of the [employer] that did not go his way”.

The FWC concluded that this conduct was likely to cause a loss of productivity, seriously damage the relationship between the Employer and the employee, and also expose the Employer to liability for psychosocial risks if the employee and manager continued to work in close proximity to one another.

The FWC found that the messages and emails formed a pattern which indicated the employee would no longer cooperate with the Employer’s reasonable and lawful direction to comply with its policies and that it was clear that the employee could not treat his manager with respect or courtesy. It was noted that the employee did not meaningfully acknowledge his conduct or show genuine remorse towards the manager and agreed with the Employer that his conduct was likely to be repeated if he remained employed.

The FWC was satisfied that there was a valid reason for the employee’s dismissal and that the dismissal was not unfair. Therefore, it dismissed the employee’s application.

Lesson for employers

This decision provides helpful support to employers when considering disciplinary action against employees for creating psychosocial risks to others in the workplace – including placing the psychosocial health and safety of their managers at risk. Where such misconduct is likely to cause serious damage to workplace relationships, it may form a valid reason for dismissal.

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

Finishing up employee in notice period amounted to termination

Until it’s time for you to go

Employers often do not require (or desire) employees to work through their notice period. This is particularly the case if an employee has provided resignation of their employment and are disruptive to the workplace.

Read more...

Commission upholds dismissal of underperforming employee

Quality over quantity

Managing an underperforming employee can often be a complex task, particularly in circumstances where the employee has shown signs of improvement, but their overall quality of work continues to fall below the minimum expectations.

Read more...

FWC upholds dismissal for refusal to take drug and alcohol test

All smoke and all fire

In a recent unfair dismissal decision, the Fair Work Commission has provided support for the position that employees bear the responsibility of complying with workplace policies and procedures and that a failure to do so can amount to not only a valid reason for dismissal but may constitute serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal.

Read more...

Sole trader convicted and fined for WHS breach resulting in death of worker

In a recent decision of the NSW District Court, a sole trader has been convicted and fined $100,000 for breaching his health and safety duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth), which resulted in workers being exposed to a risk of death or serious injury.

Read more...

$15.3 million in penalties imposed on sushi restaurants and director for serious contraventions

Put your records on

The director and Chief Executive Officer of a group of four sushi restaurants which operated in NSW, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory was recently ordered to pay $1.6 million for her involvement in contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by the Federal Court of Australia.

Read more...

Finishing up employee in notice period amounted to termination

Until it’s time for you to go

Employers often do not require (or desire) employees to work through their notice period. This is particularly the case if an employee has provided resignation of their employment and are disruptive to the workplace.

Read more...

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.