The scheme ran seven months before Board Chair noticed the payroll spike
A club manager who quietly authorized herself $32,284 in overtime payments lost her unfair dismissal case, but her employer's kitchen-sink approach nearly backfired.
Susan Bate worked at the Burringbar District Sports Club in New South Wales from 2019, climbing from casual bar staff to Club Manager. Her employment contract, signed in January 2022, paid her a $65,000 annual salary with a 20 percent management exemption that specifically excluded overtime payments under the Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2020.
But Bate believed she was being shortchanged. She thought the club's revenue exceeded $500,000, which would have bumped her into a higher award classification. She also felt her contracted hours bore no resemblance to the reality of running the operation, and that she was missing certain allowances.
In December 2023, Rachael Irby, the club's payroll clerk who reported to Bate, sought external advice. She was told Bate should be paid "as if she had no contract until the Board investigated it." Bate made her own inquiries and decided the contract was "null and void."
What happened next would cost Bate her job. From December 10, 2023, through July 21, 2024, Irby began processing overtime payments for Bate on top of her regular salary. Bate signed off on the payments each week. Neither woman told the club's Board of Directors about the change or the advice they'd received.
The scheme unraveled in October 2024 when Board Chair Karen Lewis questioned why payroll figures ran higher than expected. External bookkeepers confirmed the $32,284 total in unauthorized payments.
The Board confronted Bate with 11 allegations in May 2025. The list included the overtime payments but also swept in performance complaints about failing to train staff, not keeping proper employment records, working unauthorized hours after midnight, and even emailing directors instead of communicating only through the Chair.
The club fired her on June 23, 2025, citing serious misconduct. Bate challenged the dismissal, arguing she had legitimate underpayment concerns and the process was unfair.
In a February 16, 2026 decision, Commissioner Sloan upheld the termination but delivered a mixed verdict. Of the eight substantiated allegations the club relied on, only one cleared the bar for immediate dismissal: the unauthorized overtime.
The Commissioner found that "Ms Bate arranged with Ms Irby to receive a benefit that she knew was not contemplated by the Contract and of which the Board would not approve." The conduct was "deliberate and has the air of subterfuge about it."
Even if Bate faced genuine underpayment, she had proper channels available. She'd spoken to her union and the Fair Work Ombudsman but never asked them to formally pursue the matter. She could have filed a dispute under the award, having done exactly that in 2024 for a different issue.
The remaining allegations—performance gripes about staff training, documentation gaps, and communication style—were dismissed as insufficient to support termination. Commissioner Sloan noted the club had "sought to raise performance concerns or other grievances to the level of serious misconduct."
What HR professionals should note: employees cannot rewrite their employment terms unilaterally, regardless of how legitimate their concerns may be. But employers who load up dismissal letters with every workplace complaint risk undermining their case entirely. Only genuine serious misconduct will survive scrutiny.
