‘Dramatised’ door slam not serious misconduct: FWC overturns salon sacking

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has ruled on an unfair dismissal case that featured allegations of serious misconduct based on a door-slamming incident.

A meeting featuring the owners of a hair salon with three of their employees erupted into two immediate resignations and an eventual unfair dismissal case.

Back on 7 September 2024, the owner of a hair salon and her partner conducted a meeting with three employees. The initial basis of the meeting was to discuss the emotional distress of the owner.

According to the video evidence, the partner expressed that the owner was dealing with intense emotional turmoil and suffering from autistic burnout, strongly recommending the staff “look it up”.

This led to one employee immediately standing and verbally resigning on the spot, saying to the owner: “this is because ... you have stolen my therapist ... and that’s fucked”. Another employee joined, placing an envelope containing their resignation on the desk in front of the owner and exiting the store.

The final employee proceeded to collect her belongings and leave the store – allegedly slamming the door on her way out.

According to the employer, they perceived the third employee’s exit from the premises as partaking in the coordinated walkout that the other two employees coordinated.

This – among other previous alleged misconduct and performance concerns – led to the termination of the third employee. The employee was terminated on grounds of “serious misconduct” warranting summary dismissal based on her “aggressively” slamming the door despite the employee’s intent to continue her employment.

In her submission to the commission, the owner claimed that following the action of “aggressively” slamming the door, “they did not feel comfortable working in the same small space as [the worker] in the future”.

The employee outlined that after the coordinated walkout of the first two workers, “she felt anxious and scared to be left in the room alone” with the owner and her partner – leading to her also leaving the room.

She conceded that she did, in fact, slam the door harder than she had previously assumed upon watching the video footage – however, she argued that the stress permeated from the situation contributed to this action.

In viewing whether the employee’s dismissal was harsh and unreasonable, and the commission found that the allegations of serious misconduct were unsubstantiated. These allegations focused on her involvement in the walkout, leaving work directly after without authorisation, and the threatening conduct of slamming a door.

“There is no evidence to suggest that [the worker] was party to some sort of pre-planned staff walkout from the business … I consider the action of [the employee] leaving the premises immediately following the assumed conclusion of the meeting … to be reasonable and understandable in the circumstances,” said the commission.

“It would stand to reason that [the employee] would have felt awkward to remain in the workplace following such a meeting.

“Having viewed the footage, there is no denying that the door slammed loudly after [the worker’s] departure from the respondent’s premises. However, to suggest that such an action was threatening or a serious threat or risk to the respondent’s health and safety is an overreach.

“[The employee] provided evidence that, feeling increasingly anxious and intimidated by the events that had just unfolded, she used what she deemed necessary force to close the door in an attempt to hastily exit the uncomfortable environment. “

The commission found that the owner’s lengthy submission as to why she could no longer work with the employee in the future due to the door slam was merely “self-serving” carried out to “justify the dismissal”.

“[The employee’s] conduct on the day in question may not have been perfect, but to suggest that the one-off slamming of a door was such serious misconduct that it could be considered as a threat is a dramatisation,” the commission said.

Overall, the commission found that “the dismissal of [the employee] was harsh and unreasonable. There was no valid reason for the termination of [the employee].”

“The examples provided by the [the employer] concerning [the employee’s] conduct and performance do not individually or collectively justify the termination of [the employee’s] employment, and termination for such issues would be disproportionate on the evidence on hand,” it said.