Unfair dismissal ruling and $25k in compensation for IT worker

The Fair Work Commission has found an employee dismissed for allegedly poor telephone conduct and incomplete tasks was unreasonably terminated due to a lack of clear management feedback and notification.

The applicant was employed as Level 1 system administrator for IT service provider Asta Solutions from 1 December 2023 until his dismissal on 25 February 2026 for alleged ongoing performance and professional conduct issues.

According to Asta, a customer call on 12 December 2025 was not handled appropriately by the employee, necessitating participation in an online conflict management course.

At this time, the employee was allegedly provided with a written warning and informed that further disciplinary action, including termination, were possible should performance and behaviour not improve.

Following the completion of the course, the employee was allegedly allocated an urgent client task which included onboarding and setting up information systems.

After being unable to meet the 2 February deadline, the employee allegedly passed the job onto another colleague two days later to prepare for another task and according to Asta, the employee did not record this in the system.

An alleged miscommunication over return from leave was also cited as a factor in the employee’s termination on 25 February during a meeting with the company’s human resources manager and chief operating officer, which was scheduled the day after returning to work.

According to meeting minutes, the four issues raised during the meeting were repeated client complaints, unresolved tasks and unprofessional communication, the aforementioned allegation of poor client call conduct, the 4 February client incident, and alleged extension to leave requests beyond what was approved, as well as alleged timesheet discrepancies.

Another incident referenced during the meeting related to an alleged refusal to transfer a caller to his manager.

The employee was terminated at the conclusion of the meeting, effective immediately, and the termination letter dated the same day as the meeting.

In determining whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable as necessary to find an unfair dismissal, deputy president Tony Slevin noted the importance in establishing whether the conduct occurred.

According to Asta, performance and conduct concerns also related to multiple instances of poor customer feedback in relation to the employee between May 2024 and July 2025, which was allegedly raised with the employee at the time.

However, the deputy president found this consideration as adding little value to the respondent’s claims that issues were raised with the employee due to submitted material that was “vague and lacked context”.

Deputy president Slevin added: “I was not provided with material that indicated that the negative feedback was excessive relative to any positive feedback concerning [applicant’s] work … Asta accepted that no warning was issued to [applicant] arising from the negative feedback.”

Further, Slevin accepted the applicant’s argument that his role was affected by company restructuring that required him to handle calls further from his training and experience, such as sales, which the applicant claimed to have raised with management.

In consideration of the sales matter call transcript, the deputy president acknowledged both that the call was indeed a fringe area for the applicant, and that both caller and employee were both unprofessional.

In relation to the customer ticket handed to a colleague and the applicant’s claim that they informed their team and manager as best they could, deputy president Slevin said: “I do not consider the onboarding ticket justified a warning … [applicant’s] explanation is reasonable and his actions were reasonable.”

Finally, it was submitted that the applicant “repeatedly requested extended leave” after what was alleged to be a change to approved leave at the respondent’s request, with deputy president Slevin noting: “My assessment is he did nothing wrong here. He reached an accommodation about his leave and any misunderstanding about his leave balance or return date was not his fault.”

Because deputy president Slevin found the matter relied upon by the company at the termination meeting as not constituting a valid reason for dismissal, and none of the matters either taken separately or together constituted a valid reason, he determined they did not justify dismissal.

He said: “I am satisfied that the dismissal was unfair for the purposes of s. 385 of the Act.”

As both applicant and respondent were not interested in reinstatement due to, as noted by the former, an employment relationship that had “irretrievably broken down”, deputy president Slevin ordered remuneration in lieu of $24,146.62.

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