Fake conspiracy allegations see procurement company lose unfair dismissal ruling

A flawed HR investigation has seen the Fair Work Commission find a service manager accused of organising a workplace mutiny awarded $56,000 in his unfair dismissal application.

Commissioner Benjamin Redford found the company relied too heavily on inferences and therefore had no valid reason for dismissal.

The service manager with almost 19 years’ tenure at Winc Australia was dismissed in March 2026 after allegedly orchestrating a joint effort to remove a supervisor via false misconduct allegations and pressuring a subordinate to make a formal HR complaint.

However, the respondent’s general manager, Vikas Hegde, also noted that the reason for dismissal was a loss of trust and confidence in the employee and poor performance.

At the time of dismissal, the applicant’s manager was Tony Hawkins, with Hegde allegedly deciding on the termination with the support of a committee including Bridget Jenkins, group human resources director Sally Dickson, and Troy Swan, general counsel and company secretary.

Ahead of the dismissal, an internal investigation by Jenkins deemed the applicant’s complaints about Hawkins unsubstantiated, including allegations that he displayed anger, yelled, behaved in an intimidating manner, and made contact after hours.

Jenkins said she told the applicant the allegations “were deliberately misleading and false and these were of such a grave nature that the continuance of his employment would need to be considered”.

The investigation further found that the employee had “participated at an influential level in an attempt to have Tony Hawkins dismissed” and “displayed performance and behavioural issues which had been the subject of earlier warnings”.

However, the applicant contended that he was stood down “pending a management meeting tomorrow” and that he was not informed of the reason why. On asking what the meeting was about, Jenkins allegedly said “we are not allowed to discuss it”.

Jenkins also allegedly advised the applicant that his statement was incorrect and misleading, and that there were several performance issues.

Following the management meeting – which the employee was not a part of – the worker received a text on 20 March 2026 requesting him to read his emails, with a message from employee experience partner Bridget Jenkins informing him that his employment was terminated.

The respondent outlined the reasons as influencing and encouraging “a concerted effort by staff of the Hobart facility to attempt to remove Mr Hawkins from his position”, raising false and misleading concerns against Hawkins; “specifically that he said Mr Hawkins had regularly used visa cards to pay for overtime; that he demanded unpaid overtime be worked” and that he directed him not to speak to Jenkins, or if so, blame ex-admin worker Michael Trickett.

Further, it was said that the applicant victimised Hawkins by directing service technician and subordinate Luke Brumby to make a complaint about Hawkins, and further had exhibited generally unsatisfactory performance.

According to the respondent, findings of this behaviour would mean the employee had contravened the company’s conduct policy.

On finding the dismissal unfair, Redford called the basis for the respondent’s concerns thin and without benefit of the applicant’s opinion, adding: “I do not consider this to be a case in which alleged performance concerns were of such a degree that termination of employment was likely imminent.”

He said: “During this [the hearing] time (if not before) the Respondent’s management team, including Mr Hawkins, has become more and more convinced the Applicant had been part of a direct attack on Mr Hawkins, and it was evident at hearing this has begun to manifest in a significant level of resentment on the part of Mr Hawkins and Mr Hegde.”

It was further said that, given the length of the applicant’s service, if the respondent had any concerns and raised them with the applicant, it was more than likely that the issues would have been rectified by the applicant.

In addition, Redford said the applicant’s concerns about Hawkins were valid.

A group of several employees – although not the applicant – also allegedly featured comments expressing general dissatisfaction with Hawkins as a manager, including accusations of overbearing and haranguing behaviour. An outgoing employee also emailed several managers to complain about Hawkins.

Failure to notify the employee of the specific reason for dismissal at the meeting and termination decision, the general nature of the internal investigation, and being requested to respond to the allegations without being informed of them were also considered reasons for unfair dismissal.

With reinstatement deemed inappropriate and evidence that is “laden with suggestions that staff are contemplating resigning from the respondent – including the Applicant”, Winc Australia was ordered to pay Scott Clearly $56,332.05 within 14 days.

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