She denied the job, the money, even her own phone number—until evidence proved otherwise
A worker who lied repeatedly about moonlighting for a rival company lost her unfair dismissal case after a tribunal found her dishonesty justified the sacking.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on 14 November that iProperty Express had valid grounds to fire Taylah Chislett, a software trainer who secretly worked for a competing real estate agency while still on the payroll.
Chislett earned $80,000 plus superannuation at iProperty Express, where she trained clients on property management software. The role gave her access to sensitive business information, from client contact lists to product development plans.
The trouble started in early February when Chislett's profile appeared on Global Property's website. The real estate agency competed directly with iProperty's clients, and the profile listed Chislett as a director, complete with her photo and mobile number.
When management confronted her on 29 April, Chislett insisted her husband had posted the profile without telling her. She denied working for Global Property, denied receiving any money, and denied having done any work for them. She even claimed the mobile number on the profile wasn't hers.
None of it was true.
The company's investigation uncovered that Chislett had been working as an open house host for Global Property on a casual basis. Records on realestate.com showed her involvement in selling three properties, with two more listings under her name. Text messages proved the disputed phone number was indeed hers.
During the commission hearing, the story finally came out. Chislett admitted she had an oral employment arrangement with Global Property, had driven her husband to property viewings, and had worked as a host at open houses. She also acknowledged that calling herself a director was misleading and potentially fraudulent.
Her employment contract had clearly barred secondary employment without written permission, especially work that could conflict with her duties. Chislett never sought that permission.
Deputy President Masson found the misconduct serious enough to warrant dismissal. The combination of unauthorized competing work and persistent lying during the investigation crossed the line. The tribunal noted that Chislett had opportunities to come clean during meetings on 1 May and 12 May but continued to deny the truth.
The employer had followed proper procedures, giving Chislett two weeks to respond to allegations and holding multiple meetings before making the final decision. The commission found no procedural unfairness.
Interestingly, Chislett had already resigned on 14 April, weeks before the profile was discovered, giving twelve weeks' notice that would have seen her leave on 4 July. The dismissal simply accelerated her departure.
She has since found new work starting 11 August, at a higher salary than iProperty paid her. But the ruling stands as a reminder that lying during workplace investigations rarely ends well.
