Commission rules telehealth practice unfairly sacked psychologist for misconduct claim
Telehealth employer Very Helpful Chats misfired when it summarily sacked a senior psychologist for “serious misconduct,” the Fair Work Commission has found, ordering compensation instead.
In a decision issued on 28 November 2025, Commissioner Redford held that Very Helpful Chats Pty Ltd (VHC), an entirely online telehealth psychology practice, unfairly dismissed senior psychologist Yvonne Daly after about 13 months of service. Daly, who has a Masters in Counselling Psychology from Swinburne University and is registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, worked remotely like all VHC staff. She applied for an unfair dismissal remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009.
Daly was dismissed on 30 May 2025 and later received a letter stating that her employment had been terminated for serious misconduct. VHC’s case rested on three broad allegations: dishonesty and breach of trust in supervising a junior psychologist known as “Psychologist A”; “seriously inappropriate behaviour” in questioning a colleague’s LGBTQIA+ identity; and wilful or deliberate conduct towards administrative staff, including allegedly misrepresenting internal definitions and processes on client retention and dropout rates.
Because VHC operates entirely online, much day‑to‑day interaction was captured by transcription software, including a program called Tactiq. The Commission received voluminous transcripts of workplace interactions, alongside written witness statements. Some transcripts were incomplete, contained errors or had been edited, and several witnesses tried to explain what they “meant” by words already recorded. The Commissioner said it was necessary to navigate these issues carefully in making findings of fact.
On supervision, VHC argued Daly misled management by privately criticising Psychologist A’s work in blunt terms while using more affirming language with the junior. The contrast was clear: Daly described the reports to director Nicolle Griffin as “shit” and said they were “hurting her brain,” yet told Psychologist A things were improving. Daly said her approach with the junior was aimed at building rapport and reassurance, with more detailed corrections provided through other channels. The Commission found the inconsistency in tone was pronounced but accepted that Daly’s supportive style and extra feedback could explain it. There was no evidence VHC had put Psychologist A through performance management, and the Commission did not accept that Daly’s conduct here amounted to dishonesty or a breach of trust justifying dismissal.
The second allegation arose from a 8 May 2025 meeting where Daly said that colleague Zoe Smith, who appeared in VHC’s advertising as part of the LGBTIQA+ community, was “very straight” and “living the traditional male-female life.” Daly told the Commission she believed at the time that Smith was an ally rather than part of the community, but later accepted she was wrong. Smith gave evidence that she had never discussed her sexuality with Daly, that the “queer ally” note Daly relied on referred to a client, and that the comment was a deeply personal and harmful attack on her identity that affected her psychological safety and professional confidence. Commissioner Redford found the remark inappropriate and damaging to Smith and to Daly’s standing at work, but did not treat it as misconduct serious enough to warrant termination.
The third set of allegations concerned Daly’s dealings with administrative staff and her response to data about client retention and dropout rates. One administrator, Georgia Rizzotto, described feeling stressed and disempowered by several exchanges and said she experienced a “hostile and unsafe work environment.” However, when the Commission examined the available transcripts, it found that Daly’s messages to the practice manager about retention figures, including her question “can I ask why I am receiving this?”, were direct but not aggressive. Overall, the evidence about alleged wilful or dishonest behaviour towards the administrative team was described as “very thin,” and the Commission did not find that Daly had breached policies or contractual obligations in a way that justified dismissal.
For HR professionals, the critical lesson in the case lies in the process. Commissioner Redford found Daly was not notified of the reasons for her dismissal before the decision was made, nor given a proper chance to respond in a way that could influence the outcome. A meeting on 22 May 2025, where Griffin raised concerns and referred to transcripts, was later relied on by VHC as giving Daly an opportunity to respond. The Commission disagreed, holding that Daly could not have known at that stage that termination was being contemplated. By the time of the 30 May meeting, when Daly was told she was dismissed for serious misconduct, the decision had already been taken.
The Commission concluded that VHC had not established that Daly engaged in serious misconduct and did not have a sound, defensible or well‑founded reason to end her employment. The dismissal was found to be harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
Daly did not seek reinstatement and VHC opposed it, so the Commission considered compensation. Applying its established approach to estimating likely further employment, deducting post‑dismissal earnings and allowing for contingencies, Commissioner Redford ordered VHC to pay Daly $8,478.09, less tax as required by law, plus a superannuation contribution of $1,017.58, within 14 days of the order.
For HR leaders, the decision underscores that even in fully remote, heavily documented workplaces, fair process still hinges on clear communication, genuine consultation and a real opportunity for the employee to respond before a dismissal call is made.
