Unfairly Sacked Over an Email? Why the Fair Work Commission Sided with This Casual Teen Worker
In a case that highlights the dangers of jumping to conclusions and the need for proper digital security, the Fair Work Commission found that Nathan’s dismissal was unjust. Not because he was completely blameless — but because the company failed to prove he had done anything wrong. And because they didn’t do enough to find out.
How it began: a confidential email gets leaked
Nathan worked as a casual employee at a furniture retailer in Miranda, NSW. On 16 December 2024, a senior manager sent an internal email to the CEO discussing Nathan's behaviour and suggesting he be gradually phased off the roster. The message, not meant for his eyes, somehow landed in his inbox the very next day.
Soon after, Nathan shared the email with a colleague. Why? According to him, it was to seek advice — the contents were distressing and personally targeted. But management viewed it as a breach of confidentiality. They accused him of unauthorised access and issued a formal show cause notice.
What followed was a complex back-and-forth between Nathan, his employer, and his own mother — who also worked at the store.
The mother’s involvement – and the confusion that followed
After Nathan was dismissed on 20 December, his mother sent an email claiming responsibility. She admitted accessing the manager’s email using a shared password, and said she had forwarded the message to Nathan to “look out” for him.
But this twist only made things murkier. Nathan’s own explanation of when and how he found out about his mum’s involvement kept changing. The general manager claimed he didn’t learn about her confession until three days after Nathan had already been let go. By then, it was too late.
The Fair Work Commission wasn’t convinced by either version — but more importantly, there just wasn’t enough evidence to confirm who accessed the email in the first place. That meant the employer couldn’t rely on it as a valid reason for dismissal.
Poor systems, unfair outcome
The Commission was especially critical of the company’s security practices. All employees shared the same email passwords, and these were made public on a staff dashboard. In an environment like that, it was hardly surprising that private emails could be forwarded.
And while Nathan did share the email with another colleague, the Commission found this alone didn’t justify a dismissal. The company had failed to conduct a proper investigation, instead acting quickly on incomplete assumptions.
The result? Nathan’s sacking was found to be unfair.
Lessons for workers
This case sends a powerful message: your employer needs to get the facts right before they fire you.
If you’re facing dismissal over an allegation — especially something like a confidentiality breach — you have the right to:
Be told exactly what you're accused of,
Be given a real opportunity to respond, and
Expect your employer to investigate the matter thoroughly, not just act on assumptions.
When companies skip those steps, the dismissal may be ruled as harsh, unjust or unreasonable — even if the issue seemed serious.
Nathan’s case also shows how young workers, casual staff, and family dynamics can make situations more complex. But complexity is not an excuse for employers to act unfairly.
