Commission upholds dismissal even after the employer stumbled through the exit process
The Fair Work Commission has upheld the dismissal of two senior executives caught up in unauthorised payments, undeclared conflicts and a data deletion cover-up.
The decision in Mahmud v National Disability Support Provider Pty Ltd; Rahman v National Disability Support Provider Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1757, handed down by Commissioner Walkaden on 14 May 2026, is a striking reminder that even where misconduct is grave, employers cannot afford to coast through the dismissal process.
The applicants, Talat Mahmud and Tamanna Rahman, are married. Both held senior roles at the NDIS provider trading as Assure Ability. Mr Mahmud managed day-to-day operations and oversaw finances, reporting to the chief executive, Dr Mohammad Sharier. Mrs Rahman was the Director of IT and HR. Beyond their jobs, both sat on the board as directors from 30 June 2021 and each held roughly 20 per cent of the company's shares. They were dismissed on 22 May 2025.
The trouble began in early 2025, when the company's accountant flagged financial discrepancies and unpaid tax liabilities. A closer look followed. Dr Sharier later described what he found as widespread fraud, theft and dishonesty.
The Commission agreed there was plenty to dismiss over. Mr Mahmud had received a $25,000 payment in September 2024, recorded as an advance to a director. He called it a loan. The Commission did not. There was no written agreement before it, no approval from the CEO, and no repayment.
Mrs Rahman, for her part, sold a company-owned vehicle and had the $2,000 paid into her personal account. She did not disclose the sale or hand the money back. Her explanation — that she was offsetting unreimbursed marketing expenses — was not accepted.
Both also failed to declare conflicts of interest under the company's policy. Payments flowed from the employer to three entities they were tied to: AIE, ARU and Digi Tech Lab. Mr Mahmud had also engaged his friend's company, Grey Wall Pty Ltd, which collected $189,566.20 in about seven months for handyman work performed on weekends on properties the employer only leased.
Then came the data deletion. On 10 May 2025, when she was certified unfit for work, and again on 15 May 2025 after returning, Mrs Rahman deleted substantial material from the company's IT systems — invoices, expenditure records, personal information and other essential operational documents. Some files could not be recovered because of how they were deleted. The Commission found she was trying to cover up wrongdoing and was hiding behind a purported illness to avoid scrutiny.
Yet the employer's process was far from textbook. The notice of meeting sent on 20 May 2025 did not spell out the allegations. The CEO walked into the 22 May meeting with termination letters already prepared. The reasons given in those letters were expressed with a high degree of generality. The Commission found neither employee was properly told why they were being dismissed or given a real chance to respond.
Even so, the applications were dismissed. The Commissioner concluded that on the worst of the conduct — the unauthorised payment, the vehicle proceeds and the data deletion — dismissal was inevitable.
The takeaway for HR is uncomfortable but useful. Conflict-of-interest policies only work if declarations are actually made and recorded. Trust placed in senior staff is no substitute for oversight, particularly over payments to related parties. And process still matters: substance saved this employer, but a thinner case would have unravelled.
