The FWC just handed down a ruling on AI-assisted workplace complaints
An employee used AI to draft dozens of combative emails to HR and management. The Fair Work Commission just ruled on what happened next.
Marcus Wibmer worked as a Senior Java Developer at Fujifilm Data Management Solutions for more than 11 years without a single complaint about his performance or conduct. That changed quickly in mid-2025, and on 18 March 2026, Deputy President Slevin in Sydney dismissed his unfair dismissal claim.
The trouble started on 30 May 2025 during a Microsoft Teams chat. A colleague criticised Wibmer's code, saying it had "caused more pain than gain." Wibmer responded with the message "far q," which he later said was a typo for "far out." When the colleague asked if he had an anger management issue, Wibmer filed a formal bullying complaint. The Commission later found that the incident did not meet the statutory definition of workplace bullying, which requires repeated unreasonable behaviour creating a risk to health and safety. At a meeting on 6 June 2025, the colleague apologised. Wibmer refused to accept it. Had he done so, the Commission noted, the events that followed would not have occurred.
Instead, Wibmer escalated. He demanded the company reopen a 2019 workplace violence complaint that had already been investigated and formally closed. At an HR meeting on 8 July 2025, he was asked to put his shirt back on after being spotted in a singlet. HR manager Beverley Ord, who had only been in her role for a week, passed on the instruction. Wibmer later alleged Ord had said, "How would you feel if I took my top off?" and filed a sexual harassment complaint against her. The Commission preferred the account of HR consultant Lalita Yadav, who was also at the meeting and recalled Ord saying: "I am feeling warm too, but I'm not taking my shirt off." The complaint was found unsubstantiated.
Between 8 and 11 July 2025, Wibmer sent at least 17 emails to various managers, many of them lengthy, citing sections of the Fair Work Act, anti-discrimination law and work health and safety legislation. He later admitted drafting them with AI assistance, and colleagues observed him consulting what appeared to be ChatGPT during meetings. The emails included 24 "Interrogatory & Discovery Questions to HR," demands for documents from 2019, accusations of witness tampering and assertions that HR processes amounted to adverse action.
Wibmer also claimed Managing Director Keith Grieves had sent and then recalled an email telling him to stop raising complaints, and that he had a screenshot proving it. IT audit logs showed no such email was ever sent. Wibmer later conceded the screenshot did not exist. The Commission found he was dishonest about this, though it determined this alone did not justify dismissal.
On 11 July 2025, Wibmer told his supervisor he had broken down in tears and needed to leave. Before departing, he submitted his timesheet for the week, logging 15 hours under "Meetings concerning workplace Violence and Bullying Matters" despite attending only one required one-hour HR meeting. His supervisor had directed him to use available categories and approved the entry. The Commission found this was also not, on its own, a valid reason for dismissal. That evening, Wibmer was suspended on full pay while the company conducted a review.
At a fact-finding meeting on 25 July 2025, Wibmer asked HR manager Amir Qajar about his ethnic background, used dismissive hand gestures while managers spoke and was described as uncooperative. This conduct was cited in the subsequent show cause letter.
Wibmer invoked whistleblower protections under the Corporations Act and escalated complaints to Fujifilm's parent company in Japan. Both the company and the Commission determined his complaints were workplace grievances, not protected disclosures. General Counsel Catherine Cho, appointed by FujiFilm Holdings to investigate, reached the same conclusion.
On 7 August 2025, General Manager Architecture and Software Joseph Jamhour sent Wibmer a termination letter. The letter stated that Wibmer's conduct amounted to a breach of the FujiFilm DMS Workplace Conduct Policy and that Jamhour had lost the requisite trust and confidence in Wibmer to continue in his employment. Despite characterising the conduct as serious misconduct, the company paid Wibmer five weeks' pay in lieu of notice as a gesture of goodwill, along with accrued annual leave and long service leave.
What justified the dismissal was the broader pattern. The Commission accepted Fujifilm's characterisation that Wibmer had become "ungovernable," finding he repeatedly refused to accept investigation outcomes and failed to engage constructively. On AI, the Commission observed: "The use of AI appears to have given Mr Wibmer a false sense of security that his communications, laden as they were with allegations of impropriety by his managers and demands for corrective action, were appropriate and acceptable in a workplace setting. Objectively, they were not."
The Commission also found that Wibmer's reliance on AI to prepare his case before the Commission itself did not serve him well. His written submissions were described as "discursive and difficult to follow," and Deputy President Slevin noted he "was not wise" to have prepared his case with AI rather than following the Commission's own guidance for unrepresented parties.
The Commission identified one gap in the employer's process: Fujifilm never explicitly warned Wibmer that his communication conduct could itself become grounds for termination. This weighed in Wibmer's favour, as did his lengthy service and the impact of dismissal on his personal circumstances. But these factors were outweighed by his misconduct.
Wibmer, 64 at the time of dismissal, sought compensation rather than reinstatement, citing forced early retirement. His application was dismissed.
This case establishes that conduct expectations need to be reinforced throughout a grievance process, and that AI-assisted employee communications are now a workplace reality organisations must be equipped to navigate.
