‘War room’ phrasing from manager offends employee amid Israel-Palestine conflict  

An engineer who spent 123 out of the 291 days of his employment working remotely in Israel has argued his boss was making a “big mistake” in calling a team collaboration the “war room” in a recent unfair dismissal case.

A recent unfair dismissal case brought before deputy president Nicholas Lake at the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has touched on how geopolitical tensions can arise in the workplace.

A mechanical engineer who specialises in 3D modelling with a technique called the “Roy Method” commenced employment with a hydraulics and engineering company on 10 August 2023.

On 10 October 2023, three days after the 7 October attack in Israel, the engineer requested leave to go to Israel – his country of birth – to visit a number of his family members who still reside there. The company accepted his request and approved leave for a five-week period; however, due to flight cancellations, the engineer did not return to Australia until 8 January 2024.

Only a few months after his return, the engineer requested a period of leave to return to Israel on 23 April 2024. The reason is the death of a close family relative. The leave was granted by his employer. During both visits back to Israel, the engineer continued to work remotely.

Although this leave was granted on both occasions, it is believed that the employer did so begrudgingly as the seven-hour time difference often disrupted collaboration between the team.

This collaboration was a high priority as the company initially planned to have the engineer pass on his expertise of the “Roy Method” onto other workers; however, this was originally contested by the engineer, who had no recollection of being told he would have to train other staff.

Initial argument

After his second visit to Israel, the engineer returned to the workplace on 29 May 2024. A meeting between the engineering team was quickly established, with the topic being to clarify department goals. The discourse quickly turned to a discussion about how the Roy Method could be implemented.

It was mentioned that if each engineer learnt how to use the Roy Method, multiple engineers could then work on 3D modelling simultaneously. This, however, erupted into what was described as a “professional argument” between the group, with the engineer arguing that “for consistency and robustness of the model, one person should be responsible end to end”.

The employer alleged that the engineer was aggressive in the meeting, alleging that he was indicating that he wanted to be the only one to do the modelling. Through this, it’s alleged that he told another engineer: “[I do] not trust [you] to do the modelling”, while also questioning the credentials of his colleagues, even arguing that one didn’t belong at the meeting entirely.

‘War room’ proposal

The following day, the engineering manager organised another meeting, where he set a goal for the team to complete a task that they set way back in December 2023. To achieve this goal, a cohesive, collective effort was required.

For this to happen, the engineering manager proposed setting up a “war room”, meaning all the members of the engineering department would move their desks into one, where they would set up shop for the next two months.

The other team members agreed and began to move their desks into the war room, except for the engineer, who indicated to the manager that it was not a good idea and that he did not support the concept. He said he was offended by the term “war room”, noting his ongoing connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

He allegedly said to the manager: “You’re making a big mistake, and I don’t like it, this is not a good idea.”

The following Monday, both the engineering manager and the engineer had a meeting. During the meeting, the manager touched on the engineer’s behaviour, including his refusal to relocate to the war room. It’s alleged that the engineer then became aggressive, accusing the manager of lying.

After the argument finished, the manager advised the engineer that his employment would be terminated. The engineer alleged that the manager proposed a three-month performance improvement plan (PIP) or otherwise pay him one month’s notice.

The engineer eventually lodged an unfair dismissal claim. The employer noted two key reasons for why the engineer’s employment contract was terminated:

• “Caused serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of a person/s. Fellow co-workers felt unsafe by the aggressive nature in which you were engaging.
• “You refused to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that was given to you by your manager, to move office space to sit with the team.”

Decision

Regarding the first allegation, Lake, who oversaw the case, was not satisfied that the engineer’s behaviour posed a “serious and imminent risk” to health and safety.

The second allegation was primarily on the basis that the engineer refused to enter the war room, a concept that Lake characterised as “poor phrasing” as the manager was fully aware the engineer had recently returned from Israel, which is why he took offence and did not relocate into the new space.

Although Lake stated that the engineer’s attitude was in fact belligerent, which fractured relationships within the team, and the dismissal wasn’t fully unreasonable, he found that overall, his dismissal was both harsh and unjust.

“The dismissal was harsh given the [engineer] was dismissed summarily following a heated argument where no physical threats were made. The engineer 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. This was unjust,” said Lake.

The engineer was afforded a $20,000 remedy by the FWC for unfair dismissal.