FWC looks at case involving manager fired for insubordination, claiming unfair dismissal
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving a manager at a small coastal flora business in South Australia. The dispute centered around allegations of misconduct, insubordination, and threatening behaviour.
The case touched on issues of workplace safety, employee conduct, and management practices, the FWC had to navigate conflicting accounts of key events.
The decision ultimately hinged on the credibility of witness testimony and contemporaneous evidence regarding a heated phone call between the manager and the company's chief executive.
The employer operated a 100-acre property on the Yorke Peninsula in South Australia, aiming to grow edible native plants and develop an eco-tourism venture.
The project was still in its early stages, with only a shed, oval, and some plantings developed. The worker was hired as the on-site manager in November 2022, overseeing the property and assisting with project development.
The worker resided in a nearby town with his long-term partner, who was also engaged as a contractor for the project.
The business owner, based in Adelaide, placed a high degree of trust in the worker to manage the remote property, which was a four-hour drive from the city.
Initially, the relationship between the worker and the business owner was productive, despite occasional disagreements. They communicated regularly via phone, text, and email, with the worker providing regular reports on the project's progress.
Tensions began to emerge in late 2023. The business owner harboured concerns about the worker's commitment to the project, particularly regarding the proposed development plans. In September 2023, there were disagreements about chemical usage on the site and the location of a water tank.
Despite these concerns, the worker's employment continued into a second year with a pay increase as provided for by the contract. However, in November 2023, the business owner decided to engage a chief executive to oversee his Australian business interests, including the coastal flora project.
The chief executive, an independent contractor, was formally introduced to the staff in early January 2024. This addition to the management structure would prove significant in the events that followed.
The chief executive's involvement brought increased scrutiny to the property's operations. During site visits in January 2024, she identified issues with weed management, particularly the spread of Lincoln weed, which neighbouring landowners had complained about.
The chief executive also questioned some of the worker's decisions, including allowing a young employee to operate a skid steer (bobcat), which she viewed as a safety concern.
She emphasised that the property was "not a playground" and that the business had workplace safety obligations that couldn't be ignored.
Tensions escalated rapidly, culminating in a contentious phone call on January 18, 2024. The chief executive and worker provided starkly different accounts of this conversation. The chief executive alleged that the worker became aggressive, used profanity, and made threatening statements.
During the phone call, the Commission found that the worker made several insubordinate and rude remarks. These included:
"[The business owner] is a liar, and all of the locals are sick of him throwing his millions around. He promised me work cars, a boat and workers accommodation. Where is it?"
"He's trying to impress his millionaire mates and tells lies. He's a fucking liar"
The Commission weighed the conflicting evidence presented by both parties. The decision noted that the worker had presented a calm and respectful demeanor throughout the hearing, which seemed inconsistent with the alleged aggressive behaviour during the phone call.
However, the Commission ultimately found the chief executive's account more credible, supported by contemporaneous notes and corroborating witness testimony from her husband, who had overheard part of the call.
The Commission concluded:
"To accept [the worker's] denials is to infer that there had been an elaborate conspiracy between three people (the chief executive, the owner and [the chief executive's husband]) to have him sacked. I do not accept this to be so."
The Commission found that during the phone call, the worker made several aggressive and insubordinate statements. These included comments about the business owner being a "liar" and accusations about the chief executive's relationship with the owner.
The worker was also found to have made statements that could be reasonably interpreted as “threatening,” including a comment about “shooting holes in a water tank” in the property if it was installed.
These findings had significant implications for the unfair dismissal claim. The worker's conduct was deemed to be a valid reason for termination, undermining his argument that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
“The misconduct directly and materially undermined the trust and confidence necessary for [the employer] to maintain an employment relationship with [the worker],” the FWC said.
“The conduct bore a sufficient connection with the ‘employee's duty of fidelity and good faith’ to constitute reasonable grounds. Not only did the conduct undermine the capacity for an effective ongoing relationship between manager and Chief Executive, it also undermined the capacity for an effective relationship between manager and owner, particularly given the high level of trust that had been devolved to [the worker] to manage a remote property where both owner and Chief Executive were frequently absent,” the FWC added. Thus, it said the property manager’s dismissal was fair and reasonable.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining professional conduct in workplace communications, even during disagreements. It also highlights the value of proper documentation in employment disputes, as well as the complexities that can arise in managing remote worksites and implementing organisational changes.
