Brutal & public humiliation of a worker does not warrant sacking

The ‘Bad’ in the ‘Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ from our podcast on Probationary Periods from 4 July 2025.

When Fairness and Proportionality Collide: Brutal & public humiliation of a worker does not warrant sacking
In a notable Full Bench ruling by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), a long-serving team leader has won a reprieve against dismissal, highlighting the complexity of workplace misconduct cases particularly where fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality intersect.

Background
In August 2023, the team leader of a gift shop with an unblemished 21-year tenure found herself the subject of a misconduct investigation after the heated confrontation of a worker at the nearby café, which was operated by a third-party contractor.
After customers complained about the café being unattended, the team leader—who had previously been the point of contact for such issues—entered the café in frustration, discovering it empty. In an outburst captured on CCTV, she shouted expletives and publicly chastised the café attendant when he returned.
The outburst, though brief, was deemed by the FWC at first instance as a “brutal public humiliation,” forming the basis for the proposed dismissal of the team leader.

The Initial Decision: Proposed Dismissal to be “fair, reasonable and proportionate”
The Commissioner at the first instance determined that the proposed dismissal would be “fair, reasonable and proportionate” in accordance with clause 29.7(b) of the enterprise agreement. Despite the team leader’s remorse, being 60 years of age, recent personal tragedy, and previously unblemished record, it was ruled that her behaviour had escalated customer hostility and undermined appropriate workplace conduct.
Crucially, the Commissioner relied on a draft witness statement, suggesting the café attendant left his job due to the humiliation. This significantly influenced his assessment of the incident’s severity.

Full Bench Review: A Reassessment of Fairness
The team leader appealed, prompting a Full Bench review of the matter.
While agreeing the conduct was serious, the Bench criticised the initial Commissioner’s reliance on the draft statement as “not a sound evidentiary basis.” It emphasised that although the team leader set the emotional tone, her later efforts to de-escalate the situation warranted more weight.
Moreover, the Bench considered her personal circumstances—including emotional distress, respiratory illness, and grief—as mitigating factors that contextualised her uncharacteristic outburst.

Distinguishing Fairness from Reasonableness
A key theme of the ruling was the subtle yet significant distinction between what is “reasonable” and what is “fair.” The Bench acknowledged that there was a valid reason for disciplinary action and that maintaining zero tolerance for abuse is sound managerial judgment. However, it underscored that fairness must consider all parties’ interests, including the team leader’s long record of service and the improbability of reoffending.
They noted that the team leader’s continued employment posed no risk to the workplace or to the former café attendant, who no longer worked at the premises.

Final Decision: Proposed Dismissal Unfair in the Circumstances
The Bench concluded that while a dismissal would technically be proportionate to the misconduct, it would be unfair given the broader context. The severity of the penalty, coupled with the limited future employment prospects for a 60-year-old woman, was found to outweigh the need for punitive action.
In their words, “The loss of her job would be a heavy, life-changing penalty… from which it is unlikely she would recover.”
Ultimately, the Full Bench described the case as resting on a “value judgment.” While the initial Commissioner’s view was not deemed mistaken, the Full Bench reached a different conclusion—one shaped by a nuanced reading of fairness, tempered by humanity.
This decision serves as a powerful reminder that objective justification for dismissal does not automatically make it fair. Context, intent, and consequence all matter—and sometimes, compassion tips the scales.

Helen Woodlock v Parks Victoria [2025] FWCFB 126 (26 June 2025)