No distinction between calling manager a f-cking b-tch and lying b-tch, FWC clarifies

An employee with 44 years’ tenure at the Australian Postal Corporation has not convinced the Fair Work Commission that he was unfairly dismissed for verbally assaulting his female manager.

Fair Work Commission (FWC) deputy president Nicholas Lake determined that Australia Post had a valid reason to proceed with the dismissal after Bradley Burke directed sexist language towards his manager, including the phrase “you can’t tell me what to do, woman”.

The incident on 2 December 2025 stemmed from a discussion in October about the employee’s delivery capacity, with Burke contending he could “only manage 60 parcels a day”.

This was deemed to be too low by the manager, who had also become concerned about the employee’s conduct during work hours after finding footage of him stopping at Surfers Paradise Beach for about 20 minutes and not wearing a helmet during a shift.

The December 2025 interaction between Burke and the manager, which followed a discussion with a postal delivery coordinator about his delivery capacity, allegedly escalated into the aforementioned language.

That same day, Burke received a letter detailing allegations of the language, including that the employee added “you f-cking hear me” and “you threatened to move me off my run”, in addition to further language of the same nature.

According to the letter, Burke was allegedly restrained by three other team members to prevent the employee from moving towards the manager.

Following the altercation, the employee was given a chance to respond to the letter with a support person from the Communication Workers Union, where the applicant said that the claims were not false, but “a lot of parts have been left out”.

He also allegedly clarified that the comment “we can take it outside” was out of context, adding: “I was pushed and lost the plot.”

An investigation between 3 and 5 December, which saw management discuss the issue with multiple witnesses and those involved, resulted in the applicant being presented with a show cause letter that again detailed the allegations and findings that the conduct “was aggressive, abusive and physically intimidating, creating a serious safety risk and breaching workplace standards”.

The letter said: “While you have attributed your behaviour to provocation and stress, these factors do not excuse threats, intimidation, or repeated breaches of Our Ethics. This incident follows an ongoing pattern of noncompliance and poor judgment outlined in your disciplinary history.”

After the show-cause meeting on 9 December, the territory manager concluded that Burke’s employment would be terminated, with the employee receiving the confirmation on 16 December.

Burke initiated a review of the decision through the company’s Board of Reference, with the chairperson recommending the review be dismissed.

Despite the applicant’s age of 64, medical condition, untransferable skills, and 44 years of service, it was noted that “the Board did not gain the impression during the Review hearing that Mr Burke was genuinely remorseful for his conduct”.

In considering whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, Lake first had to determine whether the allegations of serious misconduct were established on the balance of probabilities, and therefore whether the dismissal was justified.

With respect to the specific language used during the incident, which the applicant contested, Lake said that whether Burke had called the manager a “lying b-tch” or “f-cking b-tch” was equally serious and not distinguishable.

Lake added: “I gained the impression the Applicant had limited insight into his conduct.”

“His credibility was undermined by his tendency to reflect and bring up past grievances instead of addressing the matter at hand.”

It was further noted that the applicant lied several times during proceedings, including with regard to the use of AI in preparing his statement.

Lake said: “It’s quite clear when reading the documents that this is not true. It was made even more clear when the Applicant’s wife gave evidence after him and said that they had used AI (at least for the second statement), proving the Applicant had lied.”

The commission also found that the evidence with respect to the applicant’s mental health was “surprisingly thin”, with no medical evidence supporting the argument that this caused or was related to the outburst on 2 December.

It was also determined that the statement they could take the argument “outside” was serious despite the applicant’s contention to the contrary.

The respondent argued that the incident went against a number of standards and breached its ethics and conduct policy, impacting the provision of a safe workplace for employees.

During proceedings, the respondent also noted that the applicant had received recent warnings and counselling related to his failure to wear a helmet, and further allegations of inappropriate language towards managers.

With the applicant’s service record, claims of mental health, potential financial and professional hardship the dismissal would cause, and the credibility of the applicant considered, Lake concluded these were outweighed by the gravity of the conduct.

He said: “I am satisfied that the Applicant’s conduct above amounts to a valid reason for dismissal. I am satisfied the Applicant’s conduct was serious misconduct, as it posed a risk to health and safety.”

“Organisations need to support women who are faced with these types of misogynistic attacks, particularly as many organisations are seeking to increase the number of women in leadership positions.

“Allowing misogynistic outbursts to go unchecked sends a signal to all women within an organisation that their safety is not a priority.

“The Respondent treated the incident seriously and commenced an immediate investigation, which is a credit to them.”

The application for an unfair dismissal ruling was dismissed.

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