Taft v Go Home Lifestyle Products [2025] FWC 2014: A casual employee was recently dismissed after returning from holiday when her employer accessed her emails and discovered she was searching for alternative employment with a competitor.
Background
- Applicant: Casual employee working 2–3 days/week at $40/hour
- Employer: Small business (fewer than 15 employees) trading as Go Home Lifestyle Products
- Employment period: 16 November 2023 – 18 March 2025 (dismissed)
- Claim: Unfair dismissal seeking compensation
What occured?
- The employee had reached out to a supplier looking for work, who connected her with a competitor for a possible business development role
- She shared her CV and scheduled a meeting, though this occurred during her personal time
- Her job search was motivated by dissatisfaction with pay and superannuation delays, amid discussions to shift her to part-time status
- Taft was dismissed immediately upon returning from approved leave
Employer’s reasons
- Used work email to facilitate job search with competitor (Maxton Fox)
- Asked supplier representative (ndesign Group) to find job opportunities
- Scheduled interview with competitor on day she claimed to be still on holidays
The FWC’s Decision
Small Business Fair Dismissal Code compliance: The Commission found the employer did not comply with the Code because:
- Insufficient evidence Taft used work time or email for job searching
- No basis to believe she proactively approached the competitor (she received unsolicited emails)
- No evidence of attempt to harm employer’s interests or misuse confidential information
The Commission found the employer lacked evidence that the worker had used work time or email for job search activities or had proactively approached the competitor herself, and ruled in favour of the employee.
The FWC stated the employer had not complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, noting the employer had rushed to formulate termination documents before allowing the worker to explain what occurred.
The Commission clarified she had relied on her contacts to find work on her own time and had not revealed confidential resources or abused intellectual property in her job search.
Procedural fairness: Denied – termination letter prepared before hearing Taft’s response
Outcome
- Dismissal found to be unjust and unfair
- Compensation ordered: $2,600 gross (equivalent to 4 weeks’ wages)
- Reinstatement deemed inappropriate due to irretrievable breakdown in trust
Key Takeaway
The case highlights that employers must follow proper dismissal procedures and cannot simply terminate employees for looking for other work, particularly when done on personal time without misusing company resources.
