‘I will f-----g kill you c--t’: Sham contract leads to unfair dismissal

A boxing trainer’s sudden dismissal after allegedly being the victim of verbal abuse by a colleague was escalated to the Fair Work Commission, where their employment relationship was also put to the test.

The dismissal was termed “harsh, unjust and unreasonable” by commissioner Paul Schneider after Thomas Robertson sought an unfair dismissal against Masters Training Centre, despite the respondent’s representative, Sean Spence, claiming Robertson was not employed at the time of the alleged unfair dismissal.

Robertson commenced an engagement under Masters at Good Vibes Boxing in East Perth. After 7 July 2024, he commenced working from a Stay In the Fight Boxing Australia (SITF) gym in Wanneroo, where he allegedly still believed he was working for Masters.

Robertson submitted that he was dismissed following an interaction on 14 April 2025 with Spence, who he alleges, threatened and verbally abused him along the lines of: “I will f-----g kill you c--t. Do you know who the f--- I am? I have done way worse to bigger pieces of shit than you, you think I won’t f-----g kill you … grab your stuff and get the f--- out.”

The applicant claims, despite attending work as normal on 15 April, to have heard his employment was terminated via the work WhatsApp group on 15 April 2025 by Spence.

The respondent did not submit any detailed submissions beyond expressing concerns about the management of training session safety.

The nature of Robertson’s employment was disputed between the parties, with the respondent claiming Robertson was an independent contractor to SITF, and was therefore not an employee of Masters or SITF, while Robertson himself submits he was a contracted employee, and was engaged in a sham contracting arrangement.

In providing evidence towards the claim he was an employee, Robertson noted the scheduled and routined nature of his work, uniform requirements and absence of a signed independent contractor agreement.

Robertson acknowledged that he was not paid PAYG tax, nor given superannuation contributions.

Conversely, the respondent submitted a transaction on 2 October 2025 from SITF to the applicant, suggesting that SITF was an entirely different entity from Masters, and that no employment relationship existed between Robertson and Masters at the time of his dismissal.

On 7 October, a further submission was made, including an unsigned, undated sub-contractor agreement with the details of SITF, but this was considered to have no probative value. It was noted that the respondent being a small-business employer and without human resources support “were factors that led to Mr Robertson’s employment being dismissed in a manner which lacked any of the expected or required formalities”.

Similarly, in cases of conflicting evidence, Schneider identified Robertson as the more reliable witness due to Spence’s “strong aversion to telling the truth or directly answering simple questions”.

In considering the evidence, Schneider noted that Robertson likely misidentified the true employer on the unfair dismissal application, which is believed to be SITF, although the two entities do overlap.

It was also noted that this misidentification did not render the application faulty.

And while Robertson was paid as a contractor, it was accepted that “the nature of the relationship including the duties performed, the control displayed over when and how duties were performed, and the wearing of a company uniform is consistent with an employment relationship”.

Similarly, Schneider said: “There [is] no evidence or allegations put to Mr Robertson for him to respond to or for me to consider. Instead, Mr Spence opted to verbally abuse Mr Robertson, in a proudly unprofessional manner, summarily dismissing him without providing reason.”

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.