Rebecca Callow v M People (QLD) Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2031

[2025] FWC 2031

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal.

Rebecca Callow
v

M People (QLD) Pty Ltd

(U2024/15172)

COMMISSIONER SPENCER

BRISBANE, 15 JULY 2025

Application for unfair dismissal remedy – Applicant organised fundraiser for ill colleague – fundraiser for the sale of work shirts authorised by Mine management – management guidance not provided ; email in relation to the fundraiser released employee email addresses Applicant carbon copied and not blind carbon copied the personal employee email addresses – dump truck operator established fundraiser – terminated for ‘serious misconduct’ over fundraiser email – alleged breach of privacy and confidentiality policies – comparatively different treatment of Applicant to other more senior managers; same conduct/breach more sensitive information released – lack of guidance and training from Employer on policies – no valid reason – dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable – reinstatement Ordered.

Introduction

Mrs Rebecca Callow (the Applicant/the Employee) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for a remedy in respect of her alleged unfair dismissal by M People (QLD) Pty Ltd (MacKellar/the Respondent/the Employer). The Applicant worked at the Carmichael Mine (the Mine) as a dump truck operator. The Applicant’s employment was covered by the M People Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2022.[1]

The dismissal relates to a fundraiser initiated by the Applicant, to assist an employee at the Mine who had been diagnosed with advanced cancer. The fundraiser at the Mine was to be organised by the Applicant with the assistance of Mr Mick Schafferius, the onsite Project Manager, on behalf of the Employer. The fundraiser involved the sale of work shirts. Depending on the colour of the shirt purchased, the proceeds from the sale were to either go directly to their ill colleague to assist with his treatment, or to one of the two nominated charities.

Mrs Callow was notified of her dismissal by the Employer’s Letter of Termination, signed by Mr James Cann, HR Business Partner – Carmichael Coal Mine Project (CCMP). The reason for the termination of employment was for ‘serious misconduct’, on the basis that the Applicant had allegedly breached the Employer’s Privacy Policy, the Confidentiality Agreement, and the Employment Agreement. The Respondent stated in the Termination Letter that the Applicant had “sent an email regarding MacKellar’s Work Shirt Fundraiser from your personal email account … to CCMP employee’s personal email accounts. The content of the email and the disclosure of personal email addresses was not authorized.”

The Termination Letter stated that the Applicant had “knowingly disregarded instructions to refrain from obtaining employee information, leading to a significant breach of privacy. Despite being directed not to obtain or disseminate this information on 17 October 2024 by Mick Schafferius (Project Manager), you chose to disregard that instruction and proceed otherwise.” The Employer, stated that this conduct had caused “reputational harm and complaints to the Company.” In sending the email, the Applicant had carbon copied (cc’d) the email addresses…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rebecca Callow v M People (QLD) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Rebecca Callow v M People (QLD) Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2031
Case: [2025] FWC 2031
Decision Date: 15 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rebecca Callow applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against M People (QLD) Pty Ltd. Ms. Callow organised a fundraiser for a colleague who was ill. The fundraiser involved selling work shirts, which had been authorised by the company. However, the company did not provide guidance on how to manage the fundraiser, and Ms. Callow sent an email about the fundraiser that inadvertently carbon copied the personal email addresses of the employees involved. This led to the termination of her employment for what was deemed 'serious misconduct'. Ms. Callow argued that the termination was unfair because there was no valid reason for it, and that she was treated differently compared to more senior managers who engaged in similar conduct but with less sensitive information.

The court needed to decide whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The key issues included whether the company had adequately communicated its privacy and confidentiality policies to employees, and whether there was a valid reason for Ms. Callow's termination. The court also considered whether Ms. Callow's treatment was comparatively different to that of other employees who had engaged in similar conduct. Furthermore, the adequacy of the company's guidance and training on its policies was examined, as well as the proportionality of the disciplinary action taken against Ms. Callow.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the company had not provided sufficient guidance on privacy and confidentiality policies, and that Ms. Callow's actions, while a breach, were not sufficiently serious to warrant termination. The court emphasised that the company's lack of guidance and training exacerbated the situation, and that Ms. Callow's treatment was comparatively harsher than that of other employees who had engaged in similar conduct involving less sensitive information. The court concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable, and ordered that Ms. Callow be reinstated to her former position.

Orders