Fair Work rules looking for other work not grounds for immediate dismissal
A small business owner who dismissed a casual employee for quietly job hunting with a competitor lost an unfair dismissal case on September 26, 2025.
Belinda Taft worked for Go Home Lifestyle Products, a Sydney commercial furniture brand, from November 2023 until her dismissal on March 18, 2025. She typically worked two to three days weekly at 40 dollars per hour.
While Taft was on an approved two-and-a-half-week holiday, Managing and Creative Director Simon Bando accessed her work emails. He found correspondence showing that a representative from Indesign Group, one of the company's suppliers, had introduced Taft via email to someone at Maxton Fox, a competitor. The supplier's email described Taft as "currently working for the Australian commercial furniture brand, Go Home" and suggested she might be looking for a new role. The competitor responded asking for Taft's CV and sent a calendar invitation for a meeting on March 13, a day Taft had told Bando she was still on holiday.
When Taft returned to work on March 18, Bando confronted her with a termination letter he had already prepared. He questioned why she had involved the supplier in finding alternative employment, why she was using company email for such communication, and why she was meeting with a competitor on a day she claimed to be unavailable for work.
Taft explained she had become dissatisfied with aspects of her employment, including late superannuation payments and concerns about her job security after Bando hired an intern. She admitted that during a phone call in November 2024 with the supplier, who was complaining about difficulty getting an invoice paid, she had almost burst into tears after arguing with Bando that same day. During that emotional conversation, she asked the supplier to let her know if any opportunities came up.
Taft insisted she never used work time or email to respond to the approach and saw nothing wrong with exploring what was available in her own time.
The Commission accepted that Bando genuinely believed Taft's conduct warranted immediate dismissal. However, Commissioner Matheson found the belief was not based on reasonable grounds. The decision stated: "While it is clear that the Applicant had been talking to Ms Stocco about moving on from the Respondent, Mr Bando did not have a basis for the belief that that the Applicant had used work time or email for the purposes of her job search activities or that she had proactively approached the known competitor herself."
The Commission found no evidence Taft had used company resources to actively pursue the role or had attempted to harm the business by disclosing confidential information. The decision emphasized that Taft was "simply an employee who had become dissatisfied with her employment and had approached her network in the industry, in her own time, to look for other opportunities."
Critically, the Commission found Bando had failed to provide procedural fairness. The termination letter prepared in advance showed the decision had been made before hearing Taft's explanation. While the Commission acknowledged that Taft's November conversation with the supplier, where she complained about her employer, was unprofessional, it was an isolated incident months before her dismissal.
The Commission ordered the company to pay Taft 2,600 dollars gross, representing four weeks of her average casual earnings.
For HR leaders and business owners, the decision underlines that private job hunting and networking, even when it involves suppliers and competitors, will not automatically justify summary dismissal. It also reinforces that in small enterprises, where emotions and personal relationships often run close to the surface, decisions to end employment still need a solid factual basis and a fair, orderly process if they are to withstand scrutiny.
