Raghib v Stantec Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2335
Raghib v Stantec Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWCFB 218
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A fabricated text message was pivotal in a recent unfair dismissal case in the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The case, which went to appeal, provided a number of learnings for investigators and employers.
- Digital evidence presented during workplace investigations, such as text messages, must be authenticated.
- Fabrication of evidence can amount to serious misconduct and justify dismissal because it destroys the trust essential to the employment relationship.
- The gravity of an employee’s misconduct can outweigh procedural deficiencies in investigation or termination processes when assessing whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
The case
A Human Resources Business Partner was dismissed from an engineering consulting firm on several grounds, including repeatedly misleading his employer “through the use of a doctored text message” and falsely claiming that a Complainant had been “talked into” making allegations against him.
Shortly after his employment was terminated, the employee lodged an unfair dismissal application in the FWC.
The text message
Central to the employee’s dismissal was a text message he claimed to have received on 1 July 2024 from a Human Resources Advisor (the Complainant) who had made allegations against him. The Complainant categorically denied sending the alleged message. A screenshot of the message, not produced until March 2025, read:
… I just wanted to reach out to you and let you know how sorry I am about all the trouble you went through at [Company] for what it’s worth. I was talked into making the complaint in return for my role being confirmed at [Company] and I’m not sure if you’re aware, but I am no longer there, and I’ve been feeling bad about the whole thing and just wanted to let you know that good luck with everything. All the best…
The message, if genuine, had the potential to undermine the Complainant’s credibility and suggested the complaints against the employee were coerced.
Uncovering the deception
The employee consistently claimed, up until his cross-examination in the FWC proceedings, that the Complainant had sent the text message from her personal phone to his personal phone. He maintained that a forensic review of the complainant’s mobile phone was required to verify this claim.
However, Telstra records supplied by the Complainant showed no text messages had been sent from her phone to the employee’s personal or work phones.
In support of his unfair dismissal claim before the FWC, the employee produced a screen recording on 1 July 2025 of him scrolling through text messages on his personal phone that he had allegedly received from the Complainant, including the 1 July 2024 message.
However, when the screen recording was turned into a series of screenshots, it was revealed that the phone number from which the message had been sent was in fact the employee’s own work mobile number.
When the employee was confronted with this evidence, he claimed for the first time that:
- the Complainant took his work phone – which he claims to have left at the office when he went on extended medical leave – saying he assumed she would use it in his absence;
- he had changed the Complainant’s contact details in his personal phone to associate his work phone number with her details; and
- the Complainant retained his work-issued phone after resigning from the company in April 2024 and used it to send the 1 July 2024 text message to his personal phone.
FWC findings
FWC Deputy President Masson found the employee:
- “dishonestly fabricated and sent a text message to himself, then represented it as a text message sent to him by [the Complainant]”
- created a narrative that was “a complete fiction” and “a cynical fabrication” designed by him to discredit and undermine the credibility of the primary Complainant, her allegations, and the disciplinary process
- “to be dishonest and untrustworthy in his evidence” and “not a witness of credit”.
Deputy President Masson found the fabrication constituted “serious misconduct” within the meaning of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 as it was “wilful or deliberate behaviour that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment”.
Gravity of misconduct outweighs procedural deficiencies
Despite finding valid reasons for the employee’s dismissal, Deputy President Masson identified procedural deficiencies in the dismissal, including that he was not notified of the valid reason for his dismissal or given an opportunity to respond, but said these were “outweighed by the gravity of the serious misconduct’:
“I am satisfied that as he has maintained throughout these proceedings, the [employee] would have maintained the false narrative that [the Complainant] sent the 1 July 2024 text message had he been given an opportunity to respond to that allegation. In the circumstances of this case, an opportunity to respond to the fabricated text message allegation would not have led to a different outcome.”
Deputy President Masson dismissed the employee’s application, concluding that the employee had engaged in serious misconduct and that his dismissal was valid and was not unfair, harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
Appeal rejected
The employee sought permission to appeal the Deputy President’s decision, citing seven grounds. The FWC Full Bench refused the application, concluding “the grounds of appeal do not disclose an arguable case of error” and that it was not in the public interest to grant permission to appeal.
The Full Bench noted: “The matter involves the particular circumstances of a single employee who was found to have committed two counts of serious misconduct, based on clearly reasoned factual findings, and who was the subject of adverse credit findings. The decision does not manifest an injustice.”
Conclusion
For investigators and employers, the case underscores the importance of thoroughly verifying evidence, particularly digital evidence. It also highlights that while procedural fairness is important, the gravity of an employee’s misconduct can outweigh procedural deficiencies in investigation and disciplinary processes when the conduct strikes at the heart of the employment relationship.
More information
Q Workplace Solutions’ national team of legally qualified and licensed investigators are trusted by public and private organisations, including ASX-listed companies and government agencies, to investigate complex and often highly sensitive allegations of employee wrongdoing. We also undertake reviews of organisations, divisions or units, and provide training, coaching and external advisory support to internal investigators and teams.
To find out more about how we can support you and your team, contact us on 1300 944 049. For upcoming investigations training workshops visit our dedicated training arm, Q Workplace Training.
