The CEO admitted he never read the letters that ended her job
An employer fired its financial controller over a $100,000 payment. The catch: the payment never happened on the date it alleged.
In a decision handed down on June 16, 2026, the Fair Work Commission ruled the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable and ordered the company to pay more than $50,000 in compensation. It is a case study in how a serious-misconduct case falls apart when no one checks the facts.
The employee had been a financial controller since August 2022, reporting to the chief executive and chief operating officer. The commission noted she had never faced performance counselling or any warning her job was at risk.
The dispute grew out of a tax debt. In early August 2025, the CEO and COO asked her to negotiate a fresh payment plan with the Australian Taxation Office. She landed one - monthly repayments of $100,000, with the first due on September 15.
Determined not to miss that first payment, she manually scheduled a $100,000 pre-payment for roughly 3am on September 15. She did not seek separate sign-off, believing the executives had already approved the plan. Later that day, the ATO's system automatically deducted a second $100,000. The company had now paid twice. The duplicate was picked up the same day; she investigated, confirmed it, and pursued a refund with the tax office, which came through on October 9. Over Slack, the COO wrote back "yaaay, good job claud."
For weeks, nothing suggested her job was on the line. Then, on November 24, a letter landed alleging two counts of serious misconduct. The first said that "on the 20/10/2025, you made a $100,000 payment to the ATO without management authorisation." The second alleged she had "not counting tax liability correctly resulting in $70,000 variation every week."
She attended a disciplinary meeting the next day, denied both allegations, and recorded the meeting without telling the COO. On December 1 she was terminated, effective the following day.
Then the case unravelled for the employer. The commission found no payment was made on October 20 at all - the company offered no evidence one existed. The genuine double payment was the September 15 plan mix-up, and it had already been refunded before the allegations were even raised. The chief executive accepted he "didn't read or check any of the letters" the COO sent to the employee, and the commission described his hands-off approach to signing off the dismissal as conduct that "borders on negligence." The termination letter had also asserted the employee accepted the allegations - something the COO acknowledged in proceedings did not reflect what was said in the meeting.
The dismissal was found harsh, unjust and unreasonable, chiefly because there was no valid reason for it. On procedure, the picture was mixed. The commission accepted the employee had been given a chance to respond to the allegations - a point that counted in the employer's favour - but noted she was never offered a "show cause" opportunity after the meeting to argue why she should keep her job. Reinstatement was ruled out, as she had sought compensation rather than her job back and the working relationship, the commission found, was beyond repair.
For HR leaders, the lesson sits in the process, not the personalities. An allegation of serious misconduct is only as sound as the verification behind it - and here, the commission found, the most basic check would have shown the October 20 payment never happened. Repeating that wrong date in the termination letter only deepened the problem. The commission also accepted the employee had a chance to respond, but flagged the missing "show cause" step - a reminder to build both an evidence-backed reason and a real right of reply into any dismissal.
Employers were not left without a point on principle. The commission accepted that secretly recording the meeting was misconduct, and that skipping explicit approval for the September payment breached policy - enough to cut the payout by 20%. But conduct at the edges could not save a dismissal built on an allegation no one had tested.
The final order: $50,775.23 gross, less tax, plus $6,093.30 in superannuation.
