His LinkedIn denial, "mirroring" retaliation and a birthday comment the Commission called "clumsy"
A quality manager who was fired for combative behaviour, insubordination and making sexual comments to a colleague has had his unfair dismissal claim thrown out - after the Fair Work Commission watched him do exactly what his employer complained about.
The worker had been employed at truck and trailer parts manufacturer Hendrickson Asia Pacific for about 19 months when his employment was terminated on May 29, 2026. He started in January 2025.
Between February and April 2026, the company's HR director received a string of complaints about the worker's conduct. On April 17, the company suspended him on full pay and set out five categories of allegations: refusing management directions, aggressive and combative behaviour, disrespectful treatment of colleagues, sexual language in the workplace, and broader negative impact on team relationships.
The suspension kicked off an investigation - and a slow-motion standoff over the worker's participation in it.
The company tried repeatedly to arrange a meeting. The worker could not attend one because he was accompanying his daughter on a school excursion. Another was missed because he was unwell. He promised a medical certificate "when it was available." By late May, the company wrote to say it could not delay further and invited a written response, with a deadline of May 28.
The worker responded that day - but not with a point-by-point reply. Instead, he "categorically" denied "all the planned and false allegations," calling them "entirely fabricated, malicious, disgusting and designed to obscure systemic operational failures within the company." He asked for 12 more business days. The company gave him until midday the next day. He did not respond further.
On May 29, he was terminated. He received four weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
So what were the complaints actually about?
One thread involved a corporate social responsibility committee. A quality officer on the worker's team had been appointed to the committee by a vice-president before the worker even started. The worker unilaterally emailed every committee member directing that the quality officer be "temporarily suspended" from the committee, citing capacity constraints - without discussing it with the quality officer first.
When the executive manager of operations told the worker the quality officer's participation was approved and ongoing, the worker sent another email nine days later maintaining the suspension. The Commission found he simply refused to follow the direction because he disagreed with it.
A similar pattern played out over Japan quality reporting. The worker was asked to provide summary reports on quality issues involving the company's Japanese operations. His reaction was described as "hostile." When he refused, the task was given to another employee.
Then there was the question of how the worker addressed a Japanese colleague.
The colleague was referred to throughout the workplace using the culturally respectful form "Asami-San." In February 2026, the worker began deliberately using the colleague's first name instead. When confronted, the worker eventually described what he was doing as "mirroring" - he felt the Japanese colleague had not used the appropriate formal address when referring to him, so he dropped the respectful form in retaliation.
The Commission called it "childish" and "not proper workplace conduct."
The worker's direct report also alleged two incidents of inappropriate sexual comments. The first, in November 2025, involved the worker sharing explicit details of a sexual encounter. The second, in February 2026, involved a remark about the colleague's upcoming 60th birthday. According to the evidence, the worker suggested he "should have a big orgy to celebrate while its still working."
The Commission accepted these comments were made but noted they were "clearly misplaced attempts at banter" rather than the real problem. The real issue, the Commission found, was the worker's "intractability" - not his "clumsy and vulgar attempts at camaraderie."
The worker argued the entire process was retaliation for a complaint he had lodged about a manager who told him to "shut up" twice in a meeting on March 31, 2026. The Commission rejected this. Complaints about the worker's conduct had already been received before his own complaint, and the evidence did not support the retaliation claim.
What made this case unusual was what happened at the hearing itself.
The worker represented himself at the October 14 hearing. The Commission found his conduct "went well beyond ordinary levels of defensive or argumentative behaviour a self-represented party might be forgiven for." He was described as "belligerent, confrontational and antagonistic throughout." He constantly interrupted. His evidence was "not open and forthright" and at times "did not appear truthful."
When shown his own LinkedIn profile stating he worked at Hendrickson from January 2025 to August 2026, he denied the page said that. When asked if his new role had the same title as his old one - both listed as "Quality Manager" on LinkedIn - he said no. He later contradicted himself.
He denied receiving letters requesting the return of company property - despite having sent an email acknowledging receipt of one of them. He then denied writing that email.
The Commission found the worker lacked credibility. Where his evidence conflicted with other witnesses, the Commission preferred the other evidence.
On the question of whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable - the test under the Fair Work Act - the Commission found none of the relevant considerations weighed in the worker's favour. The employer had a valid reason for dismissal. The worker was notified of the allegations and given an opportunity to respond. The application was dismissed.
For HR teams, the case is a practical reminder that an employee's demeanour during an investigation - and even during proceedings - can become evidence in its own right. The Commission drew a direct line between the workplace behaviour described in the complaints and what it observed in the hearing room.
