Case review | Taking multiple allegations at face value costs employer

Fraumano v Newport Medical Solutions Pty Ltd – [2025] FWC 2228

KEY TAKEAWAYS

In a recent case, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found an employee was unfairly dismissed due to procedural flaws resulting in there being no valid reason. The flaws included that:

• the employer failed to properly interview complainants or verify allegations
• the employee was denied procedural fairness by not being provided with specific details of the allegations
• the employer unreasonably refused the employee’s choice of a support person.

The FWC emphasised that employers must properly assess the evidence in support of allegations and not accept complaints on face value without further inquiry.

The case

A regular casual employee who conducted drug and alcohol testing for a workplace testing company was dismissed following complaints from three colleagues about alleged verbal harassment, inappropriate language, and excessive shouting.

The employee was initially suspended while an investigation into the allegations took place. Following a meeting with the employee, she was sent a show cause letter confirming that the employer believed she had engaged in verbal harassment that created a physical and psychosocial risk to her co-workers. The employee responded denying the allegations. She was subsequently dismissed.

The workplace investigation

FWC Deputy President Wright was highly critical of the employer’s investigation process finding that:

• the HR Manager who conducted the investigation failed to interview any of the three co-workers who raised allegations or to check roster records to verify their allegations
• two of the co-workers only made their complaints after feeling pressured to do so by the third complainant
• the employer failed to provide the employee with specific details of the allegations so that she could respond, citing confidentiality concerns about the identity of the complainants.

The Deputy President described as “manifestly false” the employer’s claim in the employee’s termination letter that “the credibility and sincerity of these allegations were thoroughly assessed to ensure fairness”.

The decision

The Deputy President concluded that:

• there was no valid reason for dismissal related to the employee’s conduct, there being insufficient evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities that the employee had engaged in the verbal harassment
• it was unreasonable for the employer to veto the employee’s choice of support person just because that person was another employee
• the employer’s “failure to interview the complainants and its acceptance of the complaints on face value without further inquiry weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair”.

The FWC ordered the employer to pay approximately $26,000 plus superannuation to the employee

Reflections for investigators and employers

This case provides several important lessons for workplace investigators and employers.

1. Thoroughly assess complainant motivations: Investigators must consider and thoroughly explore potential motivations behind complaints.
2. Interview all relevant parties: Simply accepting written complaints without interviewing complainants to test their credibility is inadequate.
3. Verify allegations through multiple sources: The employer could have checked work rosters to verify whether the employee and complainants had actually worked together during the relevant periods.
4. Balance confidentiality with procedural fairness: While protecting complainants’ identities is important, this must be balanced against an employee’s right to know the specific allegations against them.
5. Provide detailed allegations: Employees must be given sufficient detail about allegations against them, including dates, times, and specific incidents, to afford them a proper opportunity to respond. In this case, the employee was also entitled to know the identity of the complainants to respond to the allegations. (Note: Fairness will not always require that the complainant be identified.)
6. Allow appropriate support persons: Employers should not unreasonably refuse an employee’s choice of a support person at disciplinary meetings.
7. Consider alternative resolutions: The FWC commented that if the complainants had been interviewed, the employer may have concluded that mediation could have addressed interpersonal issues while maintaining 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.