Employer discovered the worker had a profile on competitor's website listing her as a director with her name, mobile number and email address
A software training assistant challenged her dismissal, arguing there was no valid reason for the termination, the decision was predetermined, and she had insufficient time to respond.
The employer maintained that the worker was engaged in other employment without consent, breaching her employment contract and seriously undermining trust.
The worker commenced employment in June 2024 as a software training assistant and support officer on a base salary of $80,000 plus superannuation. She had access to confidential information, including client lists, contact details and personal information.
Her employment agreement prohibited engaging in secondary employment without written consent from the managing director. The worker agreed during cross-examination that she was aware of and bound by these contract clauses.
Worker's profile found on competitor's website
Around January 2025, the worker experienced concerns about her workplace, including increased travel requirements and unpaid overtime. In mid-April 2025, she resigned and advised that her last day of employment would be early July 2025.
Shortly after the worker's resignation, the employer discovered the worker had a profile on a real estate company's website listing her as a director. The profile included her name, mobile number, email address and photo.
The employer was concerned because the real estate company competed directly with the employer's clients. The worker's role was client-facing and clients would recognise her profile on the competitor's website.
Initial meeting and the worker's explanation
The employer sent the worker an email stating her profile appeared to breach her employment agreement and suspended her access to company systems.
A meeting was held where the worker claimed her husband created the profile without her knowledge, she had no contract with the real estate company and had completed no work for them. The worker also stated she had not received remuneration and offered to remove her profile.
The employer conducted an internet search and found the worker's profile on a property website showing she had sold three properties and had two more listed. The worker rejected this allegation, stating her husband sold the properties and listed her as a secondary agent to increase their reputation and visibility.
During cross-examination, the worker agreed she was aware of the profile that had been established in February 2025 and had not sought consent or disclosed it to the employer. She also agreed the profile was misleading and potentially fraudulent as it described her as a "director" actively involved in property sales.
The worker accepted she had been employed by the real estate company on a casual basis despite previously claiming otherwise. She conceded she drove her husband to open houses and acted as an open house host.
Show cause process and dismissal
The employer sent a show cause letter stating the worker's conduct was in serious breach of her employment contract and had undermined trust. A show-cause meeting was held, where the worker maintained she had no involvement in listing or selling properties. Shortly after, the worker was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct.
The Commissioner was satisfied the worker was complicit with her husband in creating the profile to build their reputation, aligned with their ambition to own a real estate agency. Her consistent denials during the investigation were not believed. The worker was employed by the real estate company from around February 2025, while still employed and having access to confidential information.
Her lack of honesty regarding the secondary employment and profile reflected poorly on her. The worker was dishonest about the phone number listed on her profile, initially denying it was hers, then providing an unconvincing explanation.
The worker attempted to conceal the full scope of her involvement with the real estate company and the nature of her role.
The worker's conduct was contrary to her employment agreement and sufficiently serious to constitute serious misconduct. Her dishonesty during the investigation was sufficient on its own to establish serious misconduct.
Whether considered together or separately, the dishonesty and engaging in secondary employment without consent established a valid reason for dismissal.
Procedural fairness found
The worker was notified of concerns over the profile and that her conduct appeared to breach her employment agreement. Meetings were held, and the worker responded via email and through legal representatives.
The worker contended the decision was predetermined based on her suspension and systems access being revoked. The Commissioner found suspending an employee pending investigation was standard practice and did not indicate predetermination.
From initial notification to dismissal, the process took place over approximately two weeks, during which the worker attended two meetings and responded in writing twice. This timeline did not support the worker's submission that the process was procedurally unfair.
The worker also claimed that loss of system access prevented her from responding, but her representative could not identify what relevant information was inaccessible. The Commissioner was satisfied that the worker was afforded an opportunity to respond to the reason for her dismissal.
Dismissal not harsh, unjust or unreasonable
The Commissioner was satisfied that a valid reason for dismissal related to the worker's conduct had been established. The worker was notified of the valid reason before the decision was made and was given an opportunity to respond.
The dismissal was not related to performance, and the employer's size did not impact the procedures followed. No other matters weighed in favour of finding the dismissal unfair.
The dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable because there was a valid reason, the process was procedurally fair, and no other factors supported unfairness. The application was dismissed.
