iscover
Unsubstantiated bullying allegations, misogynistic claims about his colleagues, and a bizarre fiction around a text message were aired during an HR business partner’s unfair dismissal proceedings.
Following a number of investigations into bullying and sexual harassment allegations, senior human resources business partner Firas Raghib claimed he was unfairly dismissed by engineering and architecture company Stantec Australia in March 2025.
Stantec advanced three grounds of misconduct it said established a valid reason for Raghib’s dismissal, starting with the allegedly “unrelenting coercive control and predatory sexual behaviour” towards multiple female employees, including those who reported directly to him.
Given that Stantec only provided “fragile” hearsay evidence, deputy president Ian Masson was not satisfied that Raghib engaged in this conduct.
However, Masson was satisfied it was fair to terminate Raghib for contacting one of the sexual harassment complainants, and for misleading the company about a doctored text message that Raghib had repeatedly and wrongfully insisted was sent by a separate complainant.
Masson also found Raghib pressed claims that Stantec was “more concerned with making gender-based rather than merit-based selections”, despite there being no evidence in support of the allegation. It was also undermined by his own conduct, including a recommendation that one of the women be awarded a bonus for her performance.
“His criticism of other named females in his material, employees who had nothing to do with this proceeding, was disgraceful and reflects poorly on him given the role he occupied with the respondent and his claimed experience as a senior HR practitioner,” Masson said.
“The applicant’s views, as previously observed, appear misogynistic.”
During the proceedings, Raghib persistented with false statements, unsubstantiated and misogynistic claims, and demonstrated an unwillingness to make appropriate concessions, Masson added.
Contact of sexual harassment complainant
In March, Raghib was made aware of a sexual harassment complaint that alleged he had inappropriately touched a female colleague at the Christmas party, suggested she had a “great figure”, and said he hoped she and her husband “are having loads of sex so that you can have a baby”.
Masson was not satisfied that this conduct occurred, and Raghib denied making the inappropriate contact and comments.
After reading the allegations, Raghib claimed he was “shocked and instinctively called” the complainant directly.
He later rejected the idea that he had done so with the intent of undermining the investigation and agreed the call was inappropriate.
Raghib’s excuse of being shocked was rejected by Masson, mostly because he was a senior HR practitioner with “many years of experience”, and it would be “inconceivable” for him not to have been aware of confidentiality obligations in circumstances where “he himself has had responsibility for conducting or overseeing workplace investigations”.
“While the applicant denied he called [the] complainant with the intention of inappropriately interfering an investigation, the action was in breach of the applicant’s obligations to respect the confidentiality of the disciplinary process. It constitutes misconduct,” Masson said.
Doctored text message rivals work of spy novelists
Much of the proceedings concerned a July 2025 text message Raghib claimed he received from a woman who had previously made allegations of sexual harassment and coercive control against him, including a request she “do better” and “be careful around men in the office”. Like the former allegations, Masson was not satisfied that this occurred.
The text message claimed the woman had been “talked into” making the complaint and had been “feeling bad about the whole thing”.
When asked by Stantec, the woman said she “hand on heart” did not send the alleged text message to Raghib “at any point”. A report from Telstra confirmed she did not send a text to Raghib on the day in question.
A solicitor for Stantec analysed a screen recording provided by Raghib and found it had been sent from his work phone. While he conceded it was sent from this phone, Raghib alleged the woman had taken it from the workplace and used it to send the text message.
Masson said the text message was a “complete fiction”.
“It is a cynical fabrication designed by the applicant to discredit and undermine [the complainant], the allegations made by her and the disciplinary process undertaken by the respondent in response to those allegations,” Masson said in his written reasons.
The deputy president added it was a story “that even the famed spy novelist John Le Carre would have been impressed by”.
Gender over merit and other allegations
The Fair Work Commission judgment demonstrated Raghib had a history of making merit-based allegations against female colleagues, including those who would go on to make formal complaints against him.
In early June 2022, Raghib told the Australian HR manager – and his direct supervisor – that a woman who had been hired for a role that reported to him did not possess the relevant qualifications or experience, and had been appointed to increase “female participation”.
Raghib claimed this same employee had a “documented history of filing unsubstantiated sexual harassment complaints against colleagues”, but Stantec said there was no record of unsubstantiated allegations.
After that woman left, a second woman was recruited, but Raghib claimed she was not his “preferred candidate”. He added that it was convenient that running was a hobby, given that his manager was a running coach.
The judgment noted Raghib made further claims that recruitment of female candidates was due to “diversity statistics” and his manager prioritised gender hiring “over merit-based selections”.
Around February 2025, following one of the sexual harassment complaints, Raghib was invited to attend a meeting with the APAC head of legal operations. A week later, he raised a complaint of bullying against his manager and requested that he not participate in the disciplinary meeting.
An external lawyer was engaged for assistance, and it was established that there was no inappropriate conduct on the part of the manager.
In the termination letter, Stantec said some of the allegations were insubordinate or demonstrated an unwillingness to accept a difference of opinion from his manager, “which suggest[s] the management relationship had become dysfunctional” and untenable.
Masson said Raghib’s bullying complaints and misconduct of senior employees “rise no higher than unsupported allegations”.
The case: Mr Firas Raghib v Stantec Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2335.
