Unfair dismissal case raises questions about intellectual property rights in workplace
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker claimed he was unfairly dismissed after refusing to share his proprietary work method with colleagues and relocate his workspace.
The worker argued that teaching others was never part of his role and that the employer's demands unreasonably compromised his intellectual property.
The case raised questions about workplace collaboration, intellectual property rights in employment settings, and the proper procedures for handling workplace conflicts.
It also examined how extended remote work arrangements can affect team dynamics and performance expectations.
The worker started at a hydraulic cylinder manufacturing and repair company in August 2023 as a mechanical engineer. He brought with him a specialised 3D automation and modelling technique that he had demonstrated to the engineering manager before being hired. This technique was intended to improve the company's cylinder development process.
A fundamental disagreement emerged about whether the worker was hired to teach his modelling system to other staff. While the engineering manager maintained this was part of the role, pointing to meeting minutes as evidence, the worker insisted he was never told to share his technique. The Commission ultimately accepted the employer's position on this matter.
The situation became more complicated when the worker took two extended periods of leave overseas - first in October 2023, and again in April 2024 after a family member's death.
Though he continued working remotely during these absences, the seven-hour time difference created significant challenges for team collaboration.
During his approximately 10-month employment period, the worker spent 123 days working remotely from overseas. This arrangement strained workplace relationships, with the engineering manager stating in evidence that collaborative work suffered during this period.
A performance review conducted on 2 May 2024 highlighted concerns about the worker's limited competencies beyond modelling. The engineering manager emphasised the importance of team collaboration, stating: "The reality of engineering work is such that companies will not hire anyone who refuses to collaborate with other employees, or who would refuse to train or teach other employees. Such conduct renders the employment of that individual untenable."
These concerns culminated in discussions about the worker's approach to teamwork and his resistance to sharing his technical knowledge with colleagues.
A pivotal meeting on 29 May 2024 ended in what the worker described as a "professional argument" about whether multiple engineers could simultaneously work on his 3D models.
According to witness statements, the worker questioned his colleagues' qualifications and told one engineer, "you don't understand what you are talking about, you are not even part of this meeting."
The following day, the engineering manager announced plans to create a dedicated project space termed a "war room" where the team would work together.
The worker, who had recently returned from overseas, objected to both the concept and the terminology. His refusal to relocate his desk to this space led to his dismissal on 3 June 2024.
The Commission found significant issues with the dismissal process, noting: "[The worker] was notified of the reasons for dismissal after his dismissal and was not given an opportunity to respond as he was summarily dismissed."
While acknowledging the worker's problematic behaviour, the Commission stated: "The dismissal was harsh given [the worker] was dismissed summarily following a heated argument where no physical threats were made. [The worker] was not afforded a proper process where he could have been counselled regarding his approach in the meeting and how he should conduct himself in future meetings."
The Commission's final ruling balanced these factors, concluding: "The dismissal was harsh and unjust. Therefore, [the worker] is entitled to an unfair dismissal remedy."
The worker was awarded compensation of $20,000 plus superannuation, reduced from a potential maximum of $30,000 due to his contribution to the circumstances leading to dismissal through his conduct.
