A colleague found the messages on a coworker's computer while they were away
An engineer fired over private WhatsApp messages about his boss has had his dismissal overturned by the Fair Work Commission.
The Commission found on September 15, 2026, that Endacom Pty Ltd had a valid reason to sack the project engineer, who had sent messages in a group chat with coworkers that were "extremely insulting" towards his direct manager. But the company gave him no warning, no chance to explain, and no opportunity to apologise before summarily terminating him.
That lack of process cost Endacom the case.
How the messages surfaced
The engineer had worked for Endacom for about three and a half years on the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project. On October 29, 2025, he sent a series of messages between 12:40pm and 12:44pm in a WhatsApp group of nine Endacom engineers. He was not at work at the time.
The messages were insulting towards his direct manager. Separately, other messages he sent between 12:32pm and around 1:00pm were found to have encouraged coworkers to resign.
The engineer never intended for management to see any of it.
Later that same day, the engineer gave eight weeks' notice of his resignation, effective December 24, 2025. The messages had been sent before the resignation notice.
But before that notice period could run its course, Endacom discovered the messages. According to evidence from the engineer's direct manager, a drill and blast superintendent viewed the WhatsApp conversation on a coworker's computer while that coworker was away from his desk. The superintendent took a photo of the messages and passed it to the engineer's direct manager, who sent it up the chain to the general manager and managing director.
The Commission noted the evidence did not suggest the superintendent had a legitimate reason to be reading messages on someone else's computer.
Fired before he could finish his notice
On November 3 - five days after the messages were sent - Endacom summarily dismissed the engineer for serious misconduct. The termination letter cited "insulting and offensive messages" about his direct manager. Endacom later also relied on messages it said encouraged other employees to resign.
The engineer had no idea management had seen the messages before he was fired. There was no meeting, no show-cause process, no discussion of any kind.
He filed his unfair dismissal application on November 13, 2025.
Valid reason, but no fair process
The Commission found the engineer had breached his employment contract in two ways. First, the messages were sufficiently connected to his employment - even though sent outside working hours - to amount to a breach of his obligations as an employee. Second, some of the messages breached a contractual clause that prohibited encouraging Endacom employees to leave.
On the second point, the Commission accepted it was "not remotely likely" that the engineer's messages would have been the main reason for anyone to resign. The real driver, the Commission noted, was that the engineers had raised concerns about their working conditions that Endacom had not addressed. Resignations among "educated workers" who could find comparable work elsewhere were "unsurprising" in those circumstances.
Still, the contractual obligation was not to encourage any employee to leave. The Commission found the engineer had breached it.
A valid reason for dismissal existed. But that was only part of the equation.
The weight of everything else
Endacom conceded it had not told the engineer why he was being dismissed before terminating him, and had not given him any opportunity to respond. The Commission accepted those concessions.
The engineer was denied "any procedural fairness," the Commission found. He had no chance to express remorse, offer context, or explain.
Several other factors tipped the scales. The messages were sent outside working hours and were never meant for management. The only reason they surfaced was because a superintendent read material on a coworker's computer without, the Commission noted, an apparent legitimate reason to do so. The engineer had provided "quality service" over roughly three and a half years with no prior conduct or performance issues.
The Commission also pointed to the culture around language in the workplace. It found that strong language was "clearly common" among workers, citing a message the direct manager himself had sent to the engineer on September 25, 2025. The engineer's language, the Commission held, "must be viewed in that context."
Taking all of that together, the Commission found the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable.
Compensation - halved for misconduct
The engineer did not seek reinstatement. Because he had already given notice before being fired, the relevant period ran from November 3 to December 24, 2025 - about seven and a half weeks.
Endacom argued the compensation period should be limited to one week, on the basis that a fair process would only have taken that long. The Commission rejected that, noting the dismissal was harsh on grounds beyond procedural fairness alone, and that the engineer's responses during a proper process "may have mitigated the severity of his conduct."
On a salary of $190,000 plus superannuation, the lost earnings came to $27,403.85 plus super. The engineer gave uncontested evidence that he remained unemployed throughout that period and did not find new work until February 6, 2026. He had also taken significant steps to find alternative employment.
The Commission applied a 50% reduction for the engineer's own misconduct, bringing the final order to $13,701.92 gross plus $1,644.23 in superannuation - payable within 14 days.
What it means for HR teams
For employers dealing with out-of-hours conduct and private messaging, the case is a pointed example of how the circumstances around a dismissal can matter as much as the misconduct itself. A valid reason will not save a termination that skips every step of procedural fairness - and how the employer came to learn of the conduct may itself weigh against the decision to dismiss.
