An engineer who had already handed in his notice was summarily sacked after a colleague secretly read insulting messages he had sent about his manager in a private group chat. The Fair Work Commission found the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable, even though the messages did breach his contract.
What the Commission decided
Tyler Monaghan worked as a project engineer on the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project for Endacom Pty Ltd. In October 2025 he gave eight weeks' notice that he was resigning. Before that notice took effect, he sent a string of messages in a WhatsApp group with other Endacom engineers, including insulting comments about his direct manager and messages that encouraged colleagues to also quit. Endacom summarily dismissed him for serious misconduct after a colleague, Kevin Power, viewed the messages on another engineer's computer without a legitimate reason to be looking, photographed them, and passed them up the chain.
Commissioner Crawford found Monaghan's messages did breach his employment contract, both by insulting his manager and by encouraging other staff to leave, and that this amounted to a valid reason for dismissal connected to his conduct.
But a valid reason was not the end of the story. Endacom conceded it never told Monaghan why he was being dismissed before making the decision, and never gave him a chance to respond or explain himself. The Commission found those failures weighed heavily against the company.
Other facts tipped the balance further. Monaghan never intended his messages to be seen by management, and they only surfaced because a colleague was reading material on someone else's computer without a proper reason to do so. He had worked for the company for roughly three and a half years without any prior issues. The Commissioner also noted that strong language was evidently common between Monaghan and his manager, pointing to an earlier message from the manager himself as context for the tone used.
Weighing all of this together, the Commission found the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, despite the existence of a valid reason.
What was actually in dispute
The case did not turn on whether Monaghan sent the messages, that was not contested, but on how much weight his conduct should carry once procedural failures and the surrounding circumstances were taken into account. Endacom argued that any compensation should be limited to roughly a week's pay, on the basis that a fair process would only have taken that long to run. The Commissioner rejected that approach, finding the harshness of the dismissal went beyond process alone and that Monaghan might well have been able to explain or soften the picture if he had been given the chance.
The Commission instead worked out how long Monaghan would likely have stayed employed if he had not been summarily dismissed, given he had already resigned with a fixed finishing date. That period, and his earnings during it, formed the basis for calculating his loss. Because his own conduct had contributed to the dismissal, the Commission then cut the compensation figure by half to reflect the seriousness of his contractual breaches. The final amount ordered, along with superannuation, is set out in the Commission's orders.
What this means
The decision is a reminder that having a valid reason to dismiss someone does not automatically make a dismissal fair. A employer still has to follow a fair process, including telling the employee why they are being sacked and giving them a chance to respond, as explored further on this site's unfair dismissal pages. The case also shows how the Commission approaches compensation in cases where an employee's own conduct played a part in their dismissal, reducing rather than eliminating the amount owed.