Slack chat banter not cause for dismissal, FWC finds

An Amazon fulfilment centre technician has seen his unfair dismissal application upheld and his reinstatement ordered, despite informal and joking messages in his work group chat.

The Fair Work Commission has agreed that the 54-year-old, full-time employee may have conducted inappropriate behaviour and breached Amazon policy, but that it did not warrant dismissal.

Commencing employment in September 2021, the employee applied for unfair dismissal after being terminated for numerous allegations of inappropriate misconduct that breached Amazon’s policy.

The initial communications regarding suspension were received on 30 July 2025, with a first allegations letter detailing four alleged incidents, including making the comment “it seems like you just got your pen license” to a senior technician with an ethnically diverse background.

He also made inappropriate comments on the workplace messaging platform Slack – such as “any qualified tradesman knows what to do with that … sounds like you are just causing trouble again”, claiming to have finished a work order without having done so and overbooking work orders.

Two meetings were conducted, with a second allegation letter on 27 August 2025 adding that the allegation of externally emailing confidential content, such as training material and shift information.

In another meeting, the applicant raised concerns about the investigation process, prompting the intervention of an interim HR business partner from Amazon.

On 17 September 2025, the applicant was instructed to attend a meeting the following day with a different HR representative from Amazon and their operational manager. A show cause letter was also received, noting four of the five allegations had been substantiated and that termination was possible.

The applicant was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations, sending an email that day with a timeline of the investigative process to the first HR representative and then the operations manager ahead of the meeting.

However, neither were present at the meeting, nor had the second HR representative or another operations manager – who were leading the meeting – received these documents. The applicant allegedly read their document out loud during the meeting and sent it to both ahead of a scheduled outcome meeting.

The applicant was terminated with four weeks’ payment in lieu of notice on 25 September 2025.

In consideration of whether there was a valid reason for dismissal, FWC deputy president Alexandra Grayson referenced s 387(a) of the Fair Work Act (2009) that explained the reason should be “sound, defensible or well founded” and not “capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced”.

In this way, it was first necessary to establish whether the conduct occurred, with Grayson finding that allegation one was substantiated, but added that “whilst the commentary is not discriminatory in nature, Amazon has determined the comments were nonetheless inappropriate”.

The applicant did not contest engagement in the “vast majority” of the alleged conduct, but submitted that it does not, when considered individually or collectively, constitute a valid reason for dismissal.

The applicant endeavoured to apply context to some of the comments, noting that group chats were often “informal, jovial and relaxed”.

However, the senior technician referenced in comments made as part of the first allegation claimed they felt “targeted, disrespected, and uncomfortable”.

On balance, it was noted by Grayson that the behaviour was objectively unprofessional, but “they were at the lower end of seriousness and did not constitute harassment or discrimination … I do not consider that this conduct of the applicant provided the respondent with a sound, defensible or well-founded reason to dismiss”.

Regarding comments relating to the second allegation, it was similarly determined that “these exchanges are in the busy dynamic of the workplace and using the casual means of the Slack messaging platform”.

The deputy president said that the third allegation was neither dishonest nor falsified, nor was it a well-founded reason for dismissal.

Concerning the final allegation, of externally emailing confidential documents – which was sent to the applicant’s private email address – the applicant noted there was no way to defend himself and have a fair chance at responding to the allegation without access to the documents for his reference, and that they had no intention of using the documents inappropriately.

It was determined that any contravention was “minor and caused no damage to Amazon”.

Further, it was noted that the decision-maker, the secondly referenced HR expert, did not “fairly and actively engage[d] in an active intellectual process to consider the applicant’s response or the factual and legal substratum to the allegations and findings”.

This process, as well as the applicant’s age and length of employment with Amazon, all weighed in favour of finding an unfair dismissal.

Grayson said: “Having considered the evidence and submission on this matter, I have determined that, pursuant to s.391 of the act, it would be appropriate to order that [the applicant] be reinstated to his former position” and that “the respondent pay to [the applicant] an amount for the remuneration lost”.

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