Performance documented before complaints were filed changed everything in this case
A worker who raised nationality discrimination complaints during a performance process has lost her unfair dismissal claim at the Fair Work Commission.
In a decision on 5 March 2026, Deputy President Slevin dismissed the application of Ravid Rom, a former Office Manager at Team Event Pty Ltd, a Sydney-based company in the hospitality industry.
Ms Rom was hired on 17 March 2025 on a working holiday visa to manage daily office operations and foster a positive workplace culture, subject to a six-month probationary period.
Performance concerns were raised informally and formalised at a review on 6 August 2025, where she scored 3.7 out of 5. Management cited tardiness, incomplete duties, and poor colleague engagement. Ms Rom viewed the result positively and maintained those concerns were not clearly raised. The company declined to sponsor her visa that month, citing the same issues.
On 16 September 2025, Ms Rom was told she had not completed her probation. Three days later, the managing director outlined her deficiencies in writing, including lack of initiative and insufficient contribution during a company offsite. Ms Rom acknowledged the email and requested the weekend to reflect before providing a detailed response. Instead, on 22 September 2025, she filed formal complaints alleging discrimination, bullying, exclusion, and hostility based on her Israeli nationality, citing remarks about her background, political affiliations, military service, and accent. Further complaints followed on 26 and 29 September 2025.
On 29 September, the company provided an initial assessment finding no discrimination or hostility. A meeting on 1 October 2025, originally scheduled as a performance discussion, was changed to address the complaints. Ms Rom later alleged the purpose was changed without notice and claimed she was pressured into consenting to a recording. She raised further allegations, bringing the total to 31.
On 8 October 2025, Ms Barty wrote to Ms Rom with 12 misconduct allegations, including unapproved absence, tardiness, non-work activity during working hours, refusal to engage with colleagues, and a claim she had proposed circumventing Australian visa sponsorship requirements. She had 48 hours to respond with paid leave available. The next day, Ms Filler provided written findings on all 31 discrimination allegations, concluding they were largely unsubstantiated. Ms Rom replied on 10 October 2025 and was dismissed on 15 October 2025.
Before the Commission, Ms Rom argued the dismissal was retaliatory and that her 3.7 rating did not warrant termination. She claimed the outcome was predetermined, pointing to her computer access being revoked before the dismissal meeting, and alleged the investigation was biased. She also alleged Ms Filler's mother contacted her therapist in Israel without consent to check his qualifications, and that her role had been misrepresented, as promised support from an administrative assistant and interns never materialised.
Deputy President Slevin rejected the retaliation argument, finding that "Given the timing of these matters and the fact that the misconduct relied upon for dismissal was that which had been raised before the workplace complaints, I see no basis for the submission that the reason for the dismissal was not valid as it was retaliatory."
The Commission found Ms Rom had adequate opportunity to respond, was offered a support person, and that the absence of a dedicated HR manager in the 20-person business had not compromised the process. The discrimination allegations were noted but not resolved in this proceeding. Deputy President Slevin concluded: "For these reasons I find that Ms Rom's dismissal was not harsh, unjust, nor unreasonable."
This case illustrates that documenting performance concerns before a workplace complaint is filed can be decisive when a dismissal is challenged. It confirms smaller employers without dedicated HR can meet fair dismissal standards through consistent processes.
