Accounts worker refused a new HR review and kept copying the CEO
Employee who refused new performance review and kept emailing CEO about pay dispute loses unfair dismissal claim.
On 6 January 2026, the Fair Work Commission dismissed an unfair dismissal application brought by accounts payable officer Kiran Anand against her former employer, Volgren Australia Pty Limited, finding her dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
Anand started with Volgren on 3 May 2023 as an Accounts Payable Officer. Her employment was terminated on 7 March 2025 for conduct-related reasons that the employer said had resulted in an irreconcilable breakdown of the working relationship between her, her team and management. She received five weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.
The case concerned Anand’s attempts to secure a further pay increase in 2024 and her response to the company’s performance review processes and directions.
In January 2024, Anand was granted a 5% pay rise. In early August 2024, she approached her manager to seek a further pay review. On 15 August 2024, she escalated her request to the Chief Financial Officer, describing her performance as “exceptional” and herself as a “great worker and team player,” and copied in the Chief Executive Officer. The CFO responded on 16 August 2024, stating that her manager would contact her to arrange an individual performance evaluation.
On 28 August 2024, Anand’s manager met with her and advised that, because she had received a 5% pay rise in January 2024, her next pay review would be in early 2025. She was also directed not to involve the CFO or CEO in her requests for a pay review. A performance review took place on 16 September 2024, where she was informed that she was meeting expectations in her role and that her salary would be reviewed again in early 2025.
On 3 October 2024, Anand again contacted the CFO seeking the outcome of previous meetings regarding her pay review. A meeting was held on 7 October 2024 between Anand, her manager and the CFO, where she was verbally warned about her conduct in involving the CEO and her requests for a further pay increase.
By February 2025, Volgren had transitioned from a paper-based to an electronic performance review system, and an email was sent to staff to begin the new process. Anand responded on 14 February 2025, effectively refusing to participate. She wrote that she had already had a meeting with her manager and the CFO the previous year, did not think she had to “do this again,” asked to be removed from the “generis” email and requested that management “get it sorted.”
On 17 February 2025, the CFO emailed her explaining that this was a new process being implemented by the company in 2025, led by HR, so all employees would receive a periodic performance review documented in the system, and asked her to follow the guidance and complete it. Within an hour, Anand replied that she no longer felt like participating in the performance process.
She then emailed the National HR Manager, raising her concerns that her hard work had not been recognised, stating that managers lie and saying she would not attend any meeting to discuss the new processes. In contravention of an earlier direction, she copied the CEO into one of the February email exchanges.
At the hearing, Anand explained that her comment that she did not “feel safe talking face to face with Management” related to what she said was a lie by her manager. She maintained that her performance was exemplary and that she did not need to provide further information for the new online performance review process.
Commissioner Panopoulos accepted Volgren’s evidence that it had moved to an electronic performance review system and found that the direction to participate in the new process was lawful and reasonable. The Commissioner also found that the direction not to email the CEO about her pay review dispute was reasonable, and that Anand had been given multiple opportunities to comply and to discuss the process but refused.
The Commission concluded that Anand’s refusal to follow lawful and reasonable directions, and her failure to accept the employer’s prerogative to initiate an online performance review process that applied to all staff, provided a valid reason for dismissal. The working relationship was found to have suffered an irreconcilable breakdown. The unfair dismissal application was dismissed.
HR takeaway: Repeated refusal to follow lawful and reasonable directions, including participation in a company-wide performance review, can amount to a valid reason for dismissal.
