Workplace violence gets unfair dismissal claim dropped
There is a no violence policy at the Fair Work Commission. And for the majority of the time that won’t be a problem. However, for some they can’t help but be rude, disruptive, and sometimes dangerous. That is what happened in the matter of Mr Peter Kha v Glenbourne Investments Pty. Ltd. [2025] FWC 3010. His workplace violence got his claim dropped by the Fair Work Commission.
Employee starts threatening staff
In September 2025, Deputy President Roberts made the order to the employee (also known as applicant) that he should only correspond about matters related to his unfair dismissal case. The employee was also advised to only talk to the company’s solicitor.
This direction was done so that he did not talk to any company employees or others listed as part of the unfair dismissal process. It is traditional for the Commission to inform parties to keep the matter confidential and only related to the jurisdiction that the Commission can hear.
On the day that the employee was instructed to provide his submissions, the company had actually asked the Fair Work Commission to dismiss the application as the employee failed to comply with his orders. Additionally, the employer also asked for costs and to adjourn the future hearing.
Deputy President agrees with employer
Deputy President Roberts agreed with the request to dismiss the unfair dismissal claim. It was found that the employee had sent 205 emails in a little over a week. 157 of those emails was also copied to the Fair Work Commission. With 50 of the emails sent to people that were prohibited to the employee.
When examining the emails it was found that there were over 1800 pages in total. Furthermore, very little had anything to do with the nature of his claim. Many of the emails included threatening messages or were threatening in nature.
One of the e-mails included were comments to the effect: “If you step against Me, you better finish the job. Because when I shoot, it’s a double tap to the head. You won’t crawl. You won’t recover. You’ll rot exactly where I left you.”
Understand the rules
The Deputy President confirmed that he had explained to the employee the consequences if he did not comply with the directions. He explained that it would give the employer an opportunity to seek orders to dismiss the claim, and for costs. At the time the employee appeared to comprehend the directions and the consequences if he did not comply.
The Deputy President was able to dismiss the claim on the grounds that it appeared that the employee’s conduct was “deliberate, vexatious and designed to cause… inconvenience and distress“.
The purpose of the Commission is to not be a vessel for retalitory or vexatious behaviour against an employer. Their primary role is to resolve workplace disputes whenever possible.
The Commission has a strong no violence policy. This is inclusive to the employees of the Commission and to both parties with each other. This is done to protect everyone. Additionally, to provide a safe space for the dispute resolution process where conflict will naturally arise.
Revenge claim
Some employees will strategically try and be dismissed in order to be able to lodge an unfair dismissal claim. Alternatively, they will lodge a Fair Work claim in order to “stick it” to their employer even if they don’t qualify for that type of claim.
It is not advised to behave in this way. The Fair Work Commission sees thousands of claims a year and can spot the hallmarks of a deceitful claim. Furthermore, deceitful behavior will only reflect poorly on the employee. While the employer may be temporarily inconvenienced, the employee may face long term repercussions to their reputation.
Take the aforementioned story, the employee has immortalised his poor behaviour through this decision from the Commission. Therefore, he may face difficulty when trying to find further work. Particularly as it’s known that employers will look up employees whether to find their LinkedIn or other online profiles. In which, this case is likely to appear in that search.
While frustrating, it is always advised to act amicably with the employer. Sometimes that is not possible, however when it is, the employee is in a safest place having an amicable relationship and without burning any bridges. This is particularly relevant for more niche industries or professional careers.
Commission supports victims of violence
The commission have always denounced violence and support employers trying to create a safe workplace environment They’ve also supported victims of violence and their workplace rights. One example includes compensating an employee who was fired after being allegedly abused by her partner.
In the case of Ms Leyla Moghimi v Eliana Construction and Developing Group Pty Ltd, an employee (the applicant) was hired by an architectural firm in 2014. At this time she had recently moved to Australia from Iran with her partner. In January 2015 she left her partner in fear of being abused. The employee had gone to the police and applied for an intervention order to protect her.
The issue was that the partner worked at the same firm that she did. Therefore the order was amended that he could not enter their house, however he could remain at the same workplace. In doing so the partner was ordered to not approach the employee and to stay at least three meters away at all times.
Instead of following the order, the woman was fired from her employment. There was not a robust conversation as to whether the employer could protect the employment of both parties, but thought it was appropriate to terminate the victim.
Firm ordered to pay thousands
The Commission did find in the employees favour, and that she was dismissed in a harsh and unjust manner. The dismissal was not fair when the only thing she had done was try and protect herself. The employer was ordered to pay the employee $27,000 in compensation.
The case was heard during the time when the Fair Work Commission was considering whether employees experiencing domestic violence should receive additional leave. In which enough time has passed to see that the outcome was to approve that decision. Therefore employees experiencing domestic violence are entitled to an additional 10 days paid leave.
The additional days of leave give victims an opportunity to organise themselves and arrange anything that they might need without jeopardising their employment. Providing additional support for the victims that may need it.
Violence in the workplace
The Fair Work Commission has also denounced violence within the workplace. In the case of Travis Richard Brown v Famios Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 2674, an employee was fired for starting a fight at work. The employee was a team leader who says that they were provoked and that his response was a fight or flight reaction. The act of violence had occurred over two days.
On the first day the employee had gone to break up a fight between his brother and another co-worker. When the fight continued to escalate the employee had placed the coworker in a chokehold stance.
The following day the employee entered into another fight when a different colleague had accused his brother of rape and sexual assault. The employee then threatened to kill the coworker, standing in front of his face, and punching a pallet outside.
After these incidents the employee was stood down pending investigation. On the same day, the employee was fired due to serious misconduct. After being terminated the employee had lodged an unfair dismissal claim. The employee did not dispute that the fights occurred, however argued that the termination was still harsh as it was disproportionate to his conduct.
The employee tried to argue that he had only responded to the physical assault but he experienced. However, he did concede that his actions may have been excessive. In regards to the second incident, the employee highlighted the fact they had never touched the co-worker.
Employee fairly dismissed after fight
The Fair Work Commission upheld that the dismissal was fair. They did not believe that the actions of the employee were reasonably justified. Taking into consideration that the employee believed that he was provoked. The employees actions and conduct were serious and they noted that the employee had a distinct lack of remorse or insight into his behaviour .
This case continues to highlight that violence is not tolerated in the workplace. And that violence is not limited to physical attacks but can include the threat of violence. It is important to note that employees acting with some introspection and ability to apologise for the actions can aid in retaining a relationship with the employer.
The employee could have conceded that his actions were extreme or were violent with his own initiative. Then the matter may have been resolved prior to needing a public decision. This would have resulted in the matter being resolved sooner, and without the employee’s name being put online for future employers to see.
While many employers will excuse certain behavior during the hiring process, those of serious conduct or violence are held at a particularly low regard. Therefore, it’s likely that the employee found it difficult to have another employer trust him enough to be hired.
Unfair dismissal and violence
In the case of Umit Deniz v Alvaro Transport Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1273, the employee was fired due to the supposed act of “violence, bullying, harassment or discrimination, including use of foul or abusive language”.
The employee was a truck driver who had no complaints against him. An incident took place in April 2020 when a customer alleged that the employee was abusive towards them. The employee had called the state manager crying and distressed. Whereas, the customer had called the HR manager alleging that he had thrown a box at one of their staff.
A meeting was held to discuss the complaint. The customer agreed that they were taking no further action and it appeared that the employees version of events was accepted. However, after this meeting the customer wrote a written complaint about the employee to the HR manager. The complaint omitted the box throwing allegation but did describe other behaviours.
The HR manager decided to terminate the employee on the grounds of the written complaint and that she believed that the complaint reflected previous threatening behaviour and conduct.
Violence does not automatically result in fair dismisal
The Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable. This is on the grounds that the employer did not notify the employee of the reason why he was dismissed. Furthermore, the employer did not give the employee an opportunity to respond to those reasons.
It was found that the incident with the customer did not amount to a valid reason for dismissal due to the lack of evidence or substantial detail. The complaint itself was quite vague, and used general terms. No one could distinctively outline the exact behavior other than being vaguely “aggressive” or “rude”.
There was only one valid reason present that could amount to a fair dismissal. In which the HR manager had made statements that the employee used abusive and threatening language against her. The evidence provided was more explicit and direct with specific details. While there was a valid reason for dismissal the termination was ultimately considered unfair due to lack of procedural fairness.
This highlights that simply because violence is alleged does not mean that an employer is allowed to bypass their procedural fairness responsibilities. All allegations should follow the steps of procedural fairness to ensure that allegations are founded on facts rather than fiction.
Don’t tolerate violence in the workplace
Are you a victim of an unfair dismissal from your job? Call us today. AWNA are not lawyers. We are Australia’s leading workplace mediators, commentors and representatives. For the last three decades have helped thousands of employees through the Fair Work Commission.
We firmly believe that unfair treatment should never go unchallenged. We are wholeheartedly dedicated to being your advocate and representative. Do not allow injustice to prevail. Take the crucial first step towards reclaiming your rights. If subjected to a workplace investigation or workplace harasssment call us today.
See similar articles to: “Workplace violence gets claim kicked out of Fair Work”
Worker dismissed for headbutting door
