Complaint rules changed with rank in this case and Fair Work pushed back
A pilot sacked for disparaging her boss was reinstated without back pay, and HR’s inconsistent complaint handling was a key factor in the decision.
When Cassandra Cooke walked into her employer's Perth Airport office on 21 March 2025 to drop off paperwork, she had no idea the conversation that followed would end her 27-year career at National Jet Express. In the resource planning room, she made comments about Wayne Ovens, the airline's Head of Flying Operations, suggesting he "hates women" and was fighting with his wife. A nearby colleague overheard. Ovens was told, and a formal complaint followed.
Cooke denied the remarks were about Ovens, insisting she had been passing on school-gate gossip about a deputy principal. The Fair Work Commission was not convinced. In a decision handed down on 10 February 2026, Deputy President Beaumont concluded the comments were directed at Ovens, drawing on consistent evidence from two colleagues who were in the room that day. The dismissal, which took effect on 26 May 2025, had a valid reason.
Yet Cooke was reinstated from 24 February 2026, without a cent in back pay.
The Commission found the dismissal, while valid, was harsh. Twenty-seven years of service, a single incident, and the profound personal and financial impact on Cooke and her child as the sole provider in her household: the penalty did not fit. The absence of back pay was deliberate, sending Cooke a clear message about the consequences of her own conduct.
The ruling's sharpest observations, though, were reserved for how the employer had handled complaints from both sides of the ledger.
In October 2023, Cooke had complained to management about Ovens after he allegedly used offensive and gendered language during a simulator session with colleagues present. That complaint was resolved through an informal approach. When Ovens later complained about Cooke's comments in the planning office, the employer launched a full investigation with multiple witness interviews and ultimately dismissed her.
Deputy President Beaumont was unsparing: "Ovens was offered an unjustified level of generosity by the Respondent when it adopted an 'informal' resolution approach when addressing the Applicant's complaint about him."
The Commission was clear this inconsistency did not make Cooke's dismissal unjust, and it did not render the formal approach to Cooke's own misconduct improper. The primary basis for finding the dismissal harsh was the Applicant's 27 years of service, her age of approximately 54, and the significant personal and financial impact the termination had on her and her child. The inconsistency in complaint handling was nonetheless a relevant consideration in the overall weighing of factors under the Act.
The ruling also examined how far back HR can reasonably reach into an employee's history. Robin Furber, the interim Chief Operating Officer who made the decision to dismiss, gave significant weight to warnings Cooke had received in 2013, 2014 and 2020. The Commission pushed back firmly: "To be judged by conduct that unfolded 15 years ago, or 12 years ago or for that matter 11 years ago, as is the case here, is unreasonable."
The Cooke decision puts three questions on the table for every HR executive. Does your organisation apply its misconduct and harassment policies consistently, regardless of seniority? When a senior leader's complaint triggers a formal investigation but a subordinate's does not, how does that disparity hold up on the record? And when building a case for dismissal, how much genuine weight should decade-old warnings actually carry?
On that last question, the Commission left little room for debate.
