By Mike Toten Freelance Writer

A Council worker who sent an abusive and threatening text message about his Manager to a co-worker was dismissed for misconduct. However, he was reinstated after the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ruled that a written warning would have been more appropriate in all the circumstances, and that the text message was actually sent in the context of seeking help from a colleague, not a physical threat to the Manager. The Council’s response of dismissal was disproportionate to the extent of misconduct.

 

Facts of case

The employee, a Team Leader, was finding his work environment very stressful, due to recent restructures that increased his workload and work pressure, and frustration with dealing with his Manager. He sent a text message to another Team Leader that described the Manager as a “rude c**t”, and saying he was going to punch him. The employee was at home on leave and unwell at the time, but used his work phone to send the text.

When both the Council and his Manager became aware of the text, the Council ordered the employee to attend a meeting with management, presented allegations to him, then conducted an investigation. It then dismissed him for inappropriate behaviour (sending the text), misusing a work phone and “failing to raise workplace concerns in a timely and respectful manner”. 

It gave him inadequate time (two days after sending the text) to arrange a support person to attend the meeting with management. Nor did it tell him the purpose of the meeting.

However, the Council’s agreement with employees required it to give at least 24 hours’ notice of disciplinary meetings, explain in advance what the meeting will be about, and allow the employee to obtain a support person. Management understood those requirements but did not observe them. The Commission regarded this failure as procedurally unfair. 

The Commission added that the reference to “raising workplace concerns in a timely and respectful manner” should have been omitted, as a disciplinary meeting was not the appropriate forum to educate employees about what to do. 

The Council should have stayed with its initial decision to issue a written warning, instead of dismissing the employee. However, it changed its mind after the employee responded to the allegations in remorseful fashion, and said it was never his intention to actually punch the Manager – he had just typed it during a “brain snap”. The reason the co-worker who received the text notified it to management was that he wanted management to provide the employee with help and support to reduce his stress. 

 

Decision

The Commission ruled that the dismissal was harsh (given the employee’s past work record and personal circumstances), unjust (based on a text message, not actual conduct), and unreasonable (disproportionate to the extent of misconduct). It ordered reinstatement and continuity of employment.

 

What this means for employers

The main mistake by the employer in this case was to take a comment made in frustration (and not made to the person it was about) too literally. The employer should have investigated further and identified the real reasons behind why it happened, and given the employee greater opportunity (and in compliance with his employment agreement) to explain himself.

When evaluating whether an employee should be reinstated, courts and tribunals tend to focus on the extent to which trust and confidence between the employer and employee has been damaged, and whether it can be regained.

 

Read the judgment

Black v Gladstone Regional Council [2024] QIRC 285 (6 December 2024)