Since 2018, Craig McFadden (Managing Director of Savvy HR) has been a trusted voice on workplace issues, regularly appearing on ABC Radio Brisbane to provide expert insights. His commentary has covered topics such as the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill, effective consultation during restructures, ‘job washing,’ pay secrecy clauses, and remuneration reviews. Most recently, Craig joined ABC Radio Brisbane host (Steve Austen) to explore media reports of a recent QIRC decision and a crucial challenge for employers: balancing their duty to ensure a safe workplace, free from threats or psychological harm, with an employee’s right to procedural fairness.

Introduction

Workplace stress is an unavoidable reality, but what happens when an employee’s private frustrations spill over into professional consequences? A recent case before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) highlights the risks for employers navigating misconduct allegations, procedural fairness, and the broader duty of care to employees.

A long-serving Team Leader (‘Team Leader’) at Gladstone Regional Council, was dismissed for sending a private text message expressing frustration toward his manager. The QIRC ultimately found his dismissal to be harsh, unjust, and unreasonable, ordering reinstatement. As Commissioner found, “while the words used by the Applicant were inappropriate, they must be viewed in context. The message was never intended for the recipient who ultimately reported it.” This case serves as a crucial reminder for employers about managing workplace stress, procedural fairness, and proportionate disciplinary action.

At the same time, the case raises important considerations about an employer’s duty under workplace health and safety laws. The Council had an obligation to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that workers were not exposed to risks to their psychological or physical health and safety. In cases involving perceived threats, employers must carefully balance this duty with an employee’s right to procedural fairness. However, the Commission’s decision does not imply a level of acceptability or tolerance for threats and offensive language in the workplace. Rather, it highlights that the context in which such language is used is critical. The ruling is case-specific and does not establish a broader precedent for similar conduct in other workplaces.

Case Background

Team Leader had worked for the Council since 2017 and had an unblemished record. However, structural changes created a high-pressure environment, exacerbating tensions between him and his manager. While on leave, feeling stressed and anxious about returning to work, he sent a text message to a colleague stating:

"Seriously, I'm going to punch on with (his manager). He is a rude c***!"

The message, which was never intended for his manager, was later shared with the Council, leading to an investigation.  The Team Leader was ultimately dismissed on three grounds: inappropriate behaviour (threatening language), misuse of Council resources (sending the message on a work phone), and failure to escalate concerns appropriately.

Procedural Fairness Matters

The QIRC’s decision turned largely on the Council’s procedural missteps. Employers should take note of the following key issues:

• Lack of Adequate Notice: The Team Leader was summoned to a disciplinary meeting with no prior warning about its purpose, in breach of the Council’s own enterprise agreement. This deprived him of the opportunity to arrange for a support person. As the Commissioner noted, “The Team Leader was not given 24 hours’ notice of the meeting, informed of his right to have a union representative (or other representative) present, nor was he provided with detail of what the meeting was about and why his attendance was required.”
• Failure to Follow Stated Disciplinary Path: Initially, the Council had determined that a written warning was an appropriate sanction. However, it shifted to termination after the Team Leader defended himself in writing—a move the Commission found unfair. “The Respondent’s shift in penalty was not justified by any new allegations or conduct by the Applicant,” the Commissioner stated.
• Unreasonable Allegations: One of the allegations against him was that he had not raised his workplace concerns in a ‘timely and respectful manner.’ The QIRC rejected this, noting that disciplinary action should not be used as an educational tool. The Commissioner remarked, “There are other methods of educating workers on such processes, and formal disciplinary measures should not serve that purpose.”
• Oral Evidence at Hearing: The hearing established that the Team Leader was removed from the workplace because a threat was made that may be carried out. The Council could not know for certain whether the threat was credible, so the safest course was to place him on paid suspension and investigate the matter. While this action aligned with the Council’s duty to protect psychological and physical safety, it did not excuse the procedural deficiencies in how the investigation unfolded.
• Certified Agreement Requirements: The Gladstone Regional Council Certified Agreement 2021 explicitly states procedural fairness measures that were not followed in The Team Leader’s case:
  • o “2.2.4 If an Employee is required to attend a meeting in relation to a disciplinary process, they shall be provided with at least 24 hours’ notice in writing of the requirement to attend the meeting. Such notice shall include the detail of what the meeting is about and why the employee’s attendance is required and shall also make it clear that the employee has a right to have a Union representative present or other representative.”
  • o As the Commissioner concluded, “Clause 2.2 of the Certified Agreement clearly applied to the meeting on 8 June 2023 and was not complied with.”
  • o “The Team Leader was not given 24 hours' notice of the meeting, informed of his right to have a union representative (or other representative) present, nor was he provided with detail of what the meeting was about and why his attendance is required.”
  • o “Foundationally, therefore, I find that the procedural failings of the Team Leader not being provided with prior notice of the meeting or its purpose, coupled with no opportunity to arrange for a support person in advance of said meeting, is more than a ‘mere blemish’.”
  • o “While it was appropriate to take the decision to suspend the Team Leader until Council could investigate the matter of the texts, the way it went about it was procedurally unfair.”

Harshness and Proportionality

While the Council had a valid reason to investigate the text message, the Commission found that dismissal was a disproportionate response. Several mitigating factors made termination excessively harsh:

• The Team Leader had a long, unblemished employment record.
• His stress and workplace pressures were well documented.
• He had shown remorse and was willing to accept a written warning.
• The message was never intended for the manager, and the colleague who shared it did so out of concern for the Team Leader’s wellbeing.

The Commission also emphasized the significant economic and personal hardship resulting from the dismissal, further supporting its decision to reinstate him. Commissioner stated, “The impact of Team Leader’s termination was severe. His financial commitments and personal circumstances were not adequately considered in the employer’s decision-making process.”

Key Takeaways for Employers

This case offers several important lessons for employers handling workplace misconduct:

• Balancing Safety with Fairness: Employers must manage safety risks while still ensuring procedural fairness to employees under investigation.
• Proportionality is Key: Ensure disciplinary action aligns with the severity of the misconduct. Dismissal should be a last resort, particularly for long-serving employees with no prior issues.
• Follow Due Process: Adhere strictly to procedural fairness requirements, including adequate notice of disciplinary meetings, the right to a support person, and transparent decision-making.
• Consider Employee Wellbeing: High-pressure work environments can contribute to out-of-character behaviour. Employers should balance accountability with support, particularly where stress is a known factor.
• Private Expressions of Frustration Require Context: Not every venting moment should lead to termination. Context matters—whether the message was a genuine threat, or an expression of frustration shared privately can significantly impact legal outcomes.

Conclusion

This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and proportional disciplinary responses. For employers, the message is clear: a misstep in process can render even a seemingly justified termination unfair.

Workplace pressures are real, and employees—especially those in leadership roles—need structured support. Employers who recognize this can avoid costly legal battles while fostering a more resilient and fairer workplace.

Black v Gladstone Regional Council [2024] QIRC 285

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2024/QIRC24-285.pdf

Savvy HR Services

Savvy Human Resources Consulting Services provides independent workplace investigations to a high standard of procedural and substantive fairness, intellectual rigour and sensitivity.

We use our Human Resources Consulting know-how and investigation experience to support clients to deal with informal complaints through to conducting formal site-based investigations. Learn more ...

Savvy’s trauma informed approach to workplace investigation and workplace mediation processes will assist employers to manage the risks of psychosocial hazards that might arise for participants that have experienced trauma.  

Savvy HR is a specialist consultancy with extensive experience conducting workplace investigations of sensitive matters ranging from informal complaints to complex allegations of harassment and bullying that might escalate into WorkCover claims or Fair Work Commission (FWC) matters.

For workplace consulting, employment advice, employment relations support Ballina, Brisbane & Sydney contact Savvy HR.

For Human Resources Consulting Gold Coast Human Resources Ballina Human Resources Sydney contact Savvy HR.

Prohibition on republication: No part of this publication may be copied or reproduced without the written consent of Savvy Human Resources Associates Pty Ltd (SAVVYHR).

Disclaimer: This publication is provided in good faith by way of general guidance only to assist employers and their employees and is for information purposes only. It is not to be construed by the reader as legal advice or as a recommendation to take a particular course of action in the conduct of their business or personal affairs. The Information may be based on data supplied by third parties. We do not guarantee that the information in this article is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. You should not rely upon the material as a basis for action that may expose you to a legal liability, injury, loss or damage and it is recommended that you obtain your own advice relevant to your particular circumstances. Savvy Human Resources Associates Pty Ltd & SAVVYHR do not accept responsibility for any inaccuracy and is not liable for any loss or damages arising either directly or indirectly as a result of reliance on, use of or inability to use any information provided in this article

APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT – unfair dismissal – where the applicant was employed as a team leader – where the applicant sent text messages to a fellow team leader of an inappropriate nature regarding his manager – where the applicant used a council device to send the text messages – where the respondent initially proposed a written warning as the disciplinary penalty for the conduct – where after receiving the applicant's response on the proposed penalty the respondent changed the proposed penalty to termination – whether there was procedural fairness afforded to the applicant – whether the termination of employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable – where the applicant had no prior disciplinary history – whether there was a loss of trust and confidence – order for reinstatement.