Aggressive behaviour, fake evidence: Unfair dismissal claim quashed

A window fabricator tried to use a fabricated recording to win his unfair dismissal fight.

A worker who tried to rely on amended audio transcripts in his unfair dismissal claim had his case dismissed by Fair Work commissioner Julia Fox.

“[The recordings] have been transcribed and changed to suit [the worker’s] preferred version of events, and cannot be relied upon as a true and correct account of the conversations,” Fox’s decision said.

The commission unveiled a mutual agreement termination letter dated 23 June 2025, confirming a verbal dismissal of the worker made on 19 June 2025.

The worker sought compensation in an unfair dismissal application lodged on 26 June 2025.

Fox quashed the application, finding that the worker’s employment ended by mutual agreement based on the 23 June letter, dismissing the worker’s claim that he was dismissed at the initiative of his employer.

From late 2024, the worker commenced employment as a full-time factory fabricator at European Window Co (European).

European told the commission that the worker was a highly skilled fabricator and that it had no issues with his capability to do his job.

Despite his expertise, European submitted issues with the way the fabricator interacted and behaved towards co-workers, saying that he was aggressive and unable to work in a team.

The worker was pulled into a meeting on 19 June 2025, during which the company’s managing director spoke with the worker about the challenges and how they could make the relationship work.

During the meeting, the worker acknowledged the interpersonal issues that he had with multiple team members.

The managing director told the commission that it was frustrated with the worker’s unwillingness to take responsibility for his behaviour or accept that it needed to be addressed.

European gave evidence that by the end of the meeting, it became clear that these issues would not be resolved.

The worker accepted that at the end of the meeting, he said words to the effect: “Well, I guess this is the end. This is not going to work, is it?”

The commission found that both parties shook hands at the end of the meeting, the worker collected his belongings and said goodbye to his colleagues.

“Despite efforts from both sides to improve collaboration and performance, we acknowledge that the necessary progress has not been achieved.

“We both recognise that the expectations of the role have not been met and that this has had a continued impact on the team’s operations,“ the letter of mutual agreement termination dated 23 June 2025 said.

However, the worker denied there was a mutual agreement and told the commission that European dismissed him for misconduct, providing transcripts and recordings of the 19 June 2025 meeting as evidence.

The commission found that the transcripts and recordings had been tampered with to suit the worker’s version of events and gave them no weight in the case.

Based on the letter dated 23 June 2025 and the 19 June 2025 meeting, Fox determined that the fabricator had not been dismissed, but had his employment ended by mutual agreement.

In her 3 February 2026 decision, Fox rejected the fabricator’s unfair dismissal application, finding it invalid because he was not dismissed and upheld European’s jurisdictional objection to the application and his termination.