Unfair dismissal claim questions workplace communication boundaries
The Fair Work Commission recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a childcare worker was dismissed for allegedly having inappropriate discussions with families at an early learning centre and breaching workplace communication policies.
The worker maintained she never shared confidential information or personal details about her visa status with parents at the centre.
Throughout disciplinary proceedings, she consistently denied the allegations while her employer claimed these discussions had damaged their business reputation.
During the hearings, testimony from a parent emerged that contradicted the employer's allegations, raising questions about the source of the disclosed information and the handling of sensitive employment matters.
The case began at a Melbourne early learning centre in September 2024, when the worker contacted a parent about a routine matter involving a child's formula supply. At the time, her temporary work visa was due to expire in November 2024, and the centre had previously decided not to provide sponsorship.
The centre manager, who had started in mid-August 2024, issued a formal warning letter alleging the worker shared confidential information with families and failed to maintain professionalism.
The letter referred to an incident where the manager claimed to have overheard the worker arranging after-hours communication with a parent.
An HR manager became involved when the worker expressed concerns about her visa expiration. During this period, the worker received another warning letter alleging inappropriate discussions with parents about her visa status.
A crucial development came through parent testimony documented in the decision: "[The parent] said that during a 13-minute telephone call with [the manager] on 4 September 2024, [the manager] told her about [the worker's] visa status and her reliance on sponsorship for continued residency in Australia."
The parent later submitted a formal complaint to education authorities. The Fair Work Commission noted:
"[The parent] stated among other things that the centre manager had inappropriately discussed a staff member's visa status with her, and that the manager had told her that she had suggested to the staff member that she should find a husband and secure their visa that way."
During disciplinary meetings, the worker consistently denied discussing her visa status with parents. She also denied using her position to obtain personal contact details of families or contacting them outside work hours.
The employer's portfolio manager, who oversaw multiple centres, testified about policies prohibiting staff from forming relationships with families outside the workplace. The Commission examined whether discussing personal information inherently breached professional standards.
The decision stated: "But it is not inherently unprofessional for a worker to mention personal details to a client of their employer. If [the employer] wants to prohibit such conduct, it should do so clearly and expressly."
The Commission added: "One would have thought that rapport between worker and parent would be important in a childcare centre and that certain personal details might reasonably be exchanged as part of a process of building a relationship with parents."
In its final decision, the Commission found: "I conclude that there was no valid reason for [the worker's] dismissal... She did nothing wrong." The decision explicitly rejected claims about business damage: "The contention that [the worker] damaged [the employer's] reputation has not been substantiated and I reject it."
While the dismissal was found to be unfair, the Commission noted: "As to remedy, reinstatement is inappropriate. [The worker's] present visa does not allow her to work." Instead, compensation was ordered covering lost wages until the worker's visa expiration date.
The Commission awarded five weeks and two days of pay plus superannuation, accounting for three weeks' payment in lieu of notice already received. The total compensation amounted to $7,356.42 plus $845.99 in superannuation.
