Worker argues he meant to send it solely to union representative
A teacher, who served at a school for more than 20 years, has filed an unfair dismissal claim before the Fair Work Commission against Marist College Ashgrove, after he said it allegedly fired him for mistakenly sending an email that criticised his colleagues.
Stanislaw Kosiek was employed in the Brisbane-based institution as a science teacher. On 17 February 2023, he intended to send an email to his union representative, Madonna Spillane, however, instead of selecting "reply," he chose "reply all."
The ‘inappropriate’ email
In this email, the worker made “inappropriate comments” about a fellow employee who was the Head of Information Technology at the school, Kevin Berry.
He referred to Berry as “the big end of town” and also made comments about the school’s internal policies. He said workplace issues were previously “resolved calmly, professionally and successfully,” but that the existing management in the IT department “has been less than adequate.”
He also said the staff was “not cutting the mustard,” and added that they “have amazing IT staff, but recently the big end of town (need to) stop feeding at the pool tuck shop and live up to their $250,000 job!”
On 19 February, the worker withdrew the offending emailed comment by replying to the same recipients of the 17 February email.
On 20 February, he met with Michael Newman, the employer’s Head of College, at Newman’s request. He told the applicant that he was stood down from his position and had until midday, 22 February, to respond to a letter to him.
The worker sent an email to the Human Resource Director at the College, copying in Newman and directed the apology to the IT Manager, who was the subject of the “inappropriate” email.
The HR Director and Newman refused to forward the apology to the IT Manager.
Employer’s letter to the worker
The employer wrote a letter to the worker, outlining its allegations against him.
It said it “had a process for raising complaints respectfully and confidentially, and Kosiek did not follow that process, but rather publicly disparaged a co-worker.”
“While the applicant had retracted the 17 February email, it was reasonable for the [employer] to consider whether any further steps were to be taken in response to his conduct in sending the email,” the employer said.
“Newman's actions did not constitute bullying of the [worker], because Newman acted within the bounds of reasonable management action,” it added.
The employer also wrote to the worker, saying that he “[appeared to] have demonstrated a pattern of falling short of the standards required by [his] Employment Agreement, the College's Code of Conduct and policies and Marist values. This pattern has culminated in the occasions of unsatisfactory conduct.”
The worker’s leave
Kosiek was given the opportunity to take paid leave while he worked on his reply to the detailed letter, but instead of using his long service leave, he was permitted to use his sick leave after providing a medical certificate.
Before this incident, Kosiek had already made plans for an overseas vacation from 12 May to 23 May, which the employer previously approved as part of his long service leave.
In an email, Kosiek informed others that he had received medical advice permitting him to travel and requested that someone arrange for him to have unpaid leave during his trip. He explained that while on stand-down leave, he would not be able to access school software.
The worker’s return
According to records, Kosiek came back on 11 July, but after a few weeks, he was notified about “significant concerns” in his role. One of those issues that the employer raised was that he had taken an overseas vacation while on sick leave.
Consequently, Kosiek was suspended again from his position and subsequently terminated through a letter that was dated 9 August.
His legal counsels argued that he had every right to file a complaint about workplace conditions and that his holiday plans were properly communicated. They argued that his termination was unjust and unreasonable.
Meanwhile, the employer argued that Kosiek's relationships with its management had deteriorated significantly and that retaining him as a teacher would cause stress in the workplace.
Furthermore, they claimed that due to past actions, Kosiek could not be trusted in a senior leadership role.
As of this writing, Kosiek’s case will now proceed to trial as he seeks reinstatement and compensation for unfair dismissal.
