Employee's dismissal upheld after disclosure of confidential information

'Untruthful' worker passed on information to husband, who owns another company in the same business

Employee's dismissal upheld after disclosure of confidential information

An employee’s dismissal for misconduct was “fair” after she disclosed confidential information that allegedly favoured another company, according to The Fair Work Commission.

The employer submitted that she breached her employment contract by “not acting in its best interests” and after being “untruthful”.

The employee worked as a senior manager for a property management business. The employer alleged that it discovered “unauthorised correspondence” in its records showing the employee was working in the interests of another company belonging to her husband and diverting business away from the employer. 

The employee denied the claim and said that she had not placed the interests of her husband’s company ahead of her employer and that the said company’s activities were “complementary” to it. She said that they were “not in competition with them.”

Before the FWC, the employee said that “no proper investigation took place and she was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the reasons for her dismissal.”

The FWC found that the employee breached her “duty of fidelity” and employment contract in assisting in transactions for her husband’s company “that could have been business” for her employer.

The FWC also found that she breached her “duty of good faith” by disclosing confidential information to her husband.

It held that the breaches constituted serious misconduct and valid reasons for dismissal and her “misleading” the employer regarding her relationship with the other company was an additional reason.

It further held that the absence of opportunity for the employee to respond “did not render dismissal unfair” because her misconduct was “substantiated” and it would not affect the outcome of the investigation.

Thus, the FWC ruled that the employee’s dismissal was “not unfair”.

The decision was delivered on December 9, 2021.