Fair Work Commission|2025-08-13

Mr Firas Raghib v Stantec Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2335 (13 August 2025)

[2025] FWC 2335  [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2025/8312) was lodged against this decision.]

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - termination not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable - application dismissed.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Mr Firas Raghib (the Applicant) for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The Applicant was employed by Stantec Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent) and alleges he was dismissed on 20 March 2025. The unfair dismissal application was lodged by the Applicant on 31 March 2025.

[2] Following allocation of the matter to my Chambers on 22 May 2025, directions were issued, and the matter was listed for hearing before me on 4 & 5 August 2025, in advance of which both parties filed material in accordance with the directions. At the hearing, the Applicant appeared and gave evidence. Ms Nadia Stojanova of Counsel who was granted permission to appear on behalf of the Respondent pursuant to s 596 of the Act called the following persons to give evidence;

Dr Kylie Ward - HR Director - Asia Pacific for the Respondent;
Ms Erin Winsbury - former employee of the Respondent;
Ms Amanda Hughes - Procurement Lead for the Respondent; and
Mr Andrew Cardell-Ree - Solicitor of Thomson Geer.

[3] On 12 December 2021, the Applicant signed a contract of employment[1] and commenced in the position of Senior Human Resources Business Partner Vic/SA on 11 January 2022. His annual salary at the time of his dismissal was approximately $157,743. The Applicant is vision impaired and to assist him, a non-standard large screen Apple iPhone was supplied for his use on 12 May 2023. The phone number for the issued phone (Applicant's Work Phone) was XXXX XXX 579. The Respondent does not have any record of that phone being returned by the Applicant on or following his dismissal. Nor does it have any record of the Applicant seeking and having that phone number assigned to him on dismissal.[2] According to Ms Hughes, the phone service was cancelled on or about 21 March 2025 following the Applicant's dismissal. The Applicant also has another mobile phone which has the number XXXX XXX 198[3] (the Applicant's Personal Phone)

[4] In May 2022, Complainant 1 commenced employment with the Respondent as a Human Resources Advisor (HRA) for Vic/SA reporting to the Applicant. The Applicant claimed that in early June 2022 he raised a formal complaint with Paul Broad HR Manager Australia, objecting to Complainant 1's recruitment. He further claims that when appointed to his team, Complainant 1 did not possess relevant qualifications or experience, was appointed without a transparent recruitment process and with the justification being that of increasing female participation.[4] He also claimed that he attended a fortnightly catch-up with a 'Scott Davies', Transport Leader, on 3 June 2022 and says he was advised by Mr Davies that Complainant 1 had a documented history of filing unsubstantiated sexual harassment claims against colleagues.[5] He maintained that claim during these proceedings although he accepted he may have got the name wrong in referring to 'Scott Davies'. He maintained that two financial settlements were reached with Complainant 1 during her employment with the Respondent and despite that was retained in the business.[6]

[5] Dr Ward states that the Respondent has no record of any complaint being made by the Applicant regarding Complainant 1's recruitment, that there is no person named 'Scott Davies' employed as a Transport Leader by the Respondent and it has no record of any unsubstantiated sexual harassment complaints by Complainant 1.[7]

[6] On 11 May 2023, Complainant 1 was recommended for a $750 Spot Bonus by the Applicant for her recent performance and efforts. Shortly after this, she raised with Mr Broad concerns she held regarding the Applicant's conduct towards her and made a formal complaint.[8] She claimed she was overworked, overwhelmed and being used by the Applicant as his Personal Assistant and was also being regularly contacted by him after hours. The Applicant after attending an initial meeting on 23 May 2023 to discuss the allegations, was provided with the documented complaint signed by Complainant 1 attached to an email from Mr Broad on 26 May 2023.[9]

[7] The Applicant responded in writing to the allegations on 29 May 2023.[10] He was issued with a First Warning Letter[11] on 30 May 2023 which found two allegations substantiated. Firstly, that he had mislead Mr Broad in relation to the engagement of a family member of a team member. Secondly, that the Applicant had made inappropriate comments to Complainant 1 and had not maintained professional boundaries. The First Warning Letter records that during the disciplinary meeting, the Applicant said he would accept a first warning if that was the decision and that he didn't feel safe having Complainant 1 report to him. The letter went on to state as follows;

The meeting was adjourned so that your responses could be considered. When the meeting resumed, you were informed that as a senior member of the Human Resources team, there is a high standard of behaviour expected, and that you fell short of this standard. In this instance it is appropriate that a written warning be issued. A copy of this warning letter will be placed on your personnel file.

[8] While the Applicant accepted the formal warning at the time, he now states that the warning was flawed and unsubstantiated by evidence and the fact that he was required to respond in writing one day after receiving the allegations verbally is indicative of a procedurally flawed process followed by Mr Broad and Dr Ward.[12]

[9] On 8 June 2023, Complainant 1 resigned her employment with the Respondent. Dr Ward states she was advised by Complainant 1 that she was resigning because she did not feel safe to continue working with the Applicant for reasons including his fixation on her sex life and excessive work demands.[13]

[10] On 30 Oct 2023, Ms Erin Winsbury was recruited to fill a HRBP Vic/SA role based in Melbourne reporting to the Applicant. The Applicant claims that Ms Winsbury was not his preferred candidate for the role, she resided in Brisbane, as did his Manager Mr Broad, and that her primary hobby was running which was a 'convenient coincidence' given his Manager was a running coach. He further states that she was appointed to the role while he was on leave[14] and claimed that Ms Winsbury's recruitment, along with that of other females in the organisation, were decisions taken to improve diversity statistics and that the head of HR prioritised female recruitment over merit-based selections. The Applicant made a number of further unsubstantiated claims in relation to the recruitment of women that lacked merit and cost the organisation money.[15]

[11] Dr Ward states that Ms Winsbury's recruitment followed a recruitment campaign undertaken by an external recruitment firm 'u&u Recruitment Partners' (u&u). In correspondence exchanged during September 2023 between the Applicant and Carly Reel, of u&u, the Applicant made various comments regarding the suitability of Ms Winsbury for the role. On 20 September 2023, he advised Ms Reel that he believed Ms Winsbury and another candidate to be closely aligned, that Ms Winsbury was open to relocate to Melbourne and that he would like to interview her first.[16] In a further email dated 22 September 2023, the Applicant identified his preferred candidate which was not Ms Winsbury but in doing so said the following about Ms Winsbury;

I also highlighted that Erin came in as a close second and that we feel that she could be a great fit to the team should you gain any negative references or push back from your discussions with Rachel.

[12] In November 2023, the Applicant is said to have overheard Ms Winsbury in a telephone conversation discussing a personal matter with police. It is further claimed that the Applicant then provided Ms Winsbury with details of his previous relationships which made her feel uncomfortable.[18] On 1 December 2023, the Applicant sent an email to Ms Winsbury to provide feedback to her on her performance. After identifying some areas for development, he concluded with the following;

I also want to address a concern I have regarding your personal situation. While I understand that your recent relocation from Brisbane has presented some challenges, I am worried that these personal issues may hinder your ability to perform at your best. We want to set you up for success, and we are here to support you in any way we can, however I need your commitment and ability to focus in order to make this journey successful. Please also remember that you have access to myself should you feel you need support, subsequently you also have access to our EAP, so please feel free to take advantage of it.

[13] Dr Ward states that on 15 December 2023, the Respondent held its staff Christmas party in Melbourne. Following the Christmas party, the Respondent was informed of an alleged sexual assault that occurred after the party involving two of its employees. On 20 December 2023, the Respondent was advised by Victoria Police (VicPol) of an active investigation into the alleged sexual assault. Having been advised of the active police investigation, the Respondent decided it would be inappropriate for it to conduct an investigation prior to conclusion of VicPol's investigation. Safety measures were implemented by placing the two employees in different work locations on return from the annual shut down period.[20] VicPol supported the measures taken by the Respondent.[21]

[14] The Applicant claims that he was entitled to investigate the alleged sexual assault and matters going to whether the function had the right controls in place. He states that he was directed by Dr Ward not to conduct an investigation. When cross examined on this claim, the Applicant acknowledged that he was aware at the time of VicPol's active investigation of the sexual assault as evidenced by his instruction to Ms Winsbury on 22 December 2023 that she run any response past him regarding the alleged sexual assault if she received any further contact from VicPol.[22] He rejected that his claim of being directed not to conduct an investigation was a recent fabrication despite also stating in his email to Ms Winsbury that "just to make sure we are not being dragged into the investigation given that there is alot at steak [sic] here."

[15] When cross-examined on the alleged sexual assault at the 2023 Christmas Party, Dr Ward stated that she did not recall the Applicant raising any concern about not proceeding with an investigation while the VicPol investigation was active. Nor did she recall giving the Applicant an instruction to not investigate the incident.

[16] Dr Ward states that on 8 February 2024, Ms Winsbury emailed Mr Broad seeking a meeting. This text message followed the Applicant requesting a medical certificate from Ms Winsbury for a work absence.[23] On 12 February 2024, Mr Vick Naidu, Head of Legal Operations APAC, sent an email to Mr Broad providing him with notes of Ms Winsbury's complaint against the Applicant. Mr Broad responded to that email[24] and on 13 February 2024, sent an email to the Applicant inviting him to a meeting on 16 February 2024 to discuss concerns raised regarding his conduct towards Ms Winsbury.[25]

[17] On 14 February 2024, the Applicant sent an email[26] to Dr Ward in response to receiving Mr Broad's meeting notification and formally raised complaints in relation to alleged bullying by Mr Broad (the Broad Bullying Complaint) and requested that Mr Broad not participate in the scheduled disciplinary meeting with him. On that same day Mr Naidu sent an email to Lara Radik at Carter Newell Lawyers seeking assistance in respect of the Broad Bullying Complaint.[27]

[18] On 19 February 2024, Ms Winsbury met with Michael Jamieson, HR Manager for NZ, by video to outline her concerns about the Applicant's conduct towards her. Mr Jamieson was requested by Dr Ward to become involved because of the complaints made by the Applicant regarding Mr Broad. Mr Jamieson subsequently prepared a record of his investigation meeting with Ms Winsbury. On 20 February 2024, Ms Winsbury signed the record of the meeting (Erin Winsbury Complaint)[28] prepared by Mr Jameison, which set out her concerns and complaints regarding the Applicant's conduct towards her. Her complaints were that the Applicant;

(a) exercised coercive control over Ms Winsbury's personal time (including where she went after the 2023 Stantec Christmas party);

(b) used the infantilising language of "girl" when addressing Ms Winsbury;

(c) obsessively questioned Ms Winsbury about whether she had been intimate or romantic with male colleagues and demanded that Ms Winsbury inform him right away if she was seeing anyone at Stantec; and

(d) attempted to make Ms Winsbury feel indebted to him for her job at Stantec by making comments including that "the only reason she hadn't lost her job that day was because he stuck his neck out for her...she came very close to being fired...she was on her last chance, that he was very disappointed in her, and that she needed to do better for him, and she needed to be careful around men in the office.

[19] The Erin Winsbury Complaint was provided to the Applicant on 20 February 2024[29] and on 23 February 2024, the Applicant provided a response to the allegations.[30] The Applicant attended a meeting with Dr Ward and Mr Jamieson on 26 February 2024 to further respond to Ms Winbury's complaints[31] and on 1 March 2024, the Applicant commenced a period of absence from work pursuant to medical certificates he provided. He subsequently advised Mr Broad on 4 March 2024 that he would be unable to attend work due to his medical condition and foreshadowed that he would be submitting a WorkCover claim which he subsequently lodged on 7 March 2025.[32] A meeting scheduled for 6 March 2024 with the Applicant to discuss the outcome of the investigation of Ms Winsbury's complaints did not proceed as the Applicant was 'unfit for work'.[33]

[20] Between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025, the Applicant provided multiple medical certificates covering his prolonged absence from work. The medical certificates stated that the Applicant was totally unfit for work and had a clinical diagnosis which referred to "overwork and stress".[34] During that period the Respondent wrote to the Applicant on various occasions advising it would not meet and discuss the outcome of the investigation until he provided the Respondent with a medical certificate stating he was fit to participate in such a meeting. This included correspondence sent to the Applicant on 19 March 2024[35] and 5 April 2024.[36]

[21] On 20 March 2024, Ms Radik wrote to Mr Naidu and advised the outcome of the investigation of the Broad Bullying Complaints and that no finding of inappropriate conduct on the part of Mr Broad was established.[37] On 26 March 2024, Ms Radik sent an email to the Applicant advising that her investigation findings regarding his complaints over Mr Broad had been provided to the Respondent.[38]

[22] On 15 April 2024, an Independent Psychiatric Report[39] (the IME Report) on the Applicant was provided to the Respondent's Workers Compensation provider, Gallagher Bassett Service Workers Compensation Vic Pty Ltd (Gallagher Bassett). The IME Report relevantly stated that the Applicant lacked capacity to do any work at that time, the incapacity was likely to remain for 6-8 weeks and that once he was symptomatically better, he should be able to return work with workplace modifications including a graduated return.

[23] On 16 April 2024, Complainant 3 signed a statement of complaint (the Complainant 3 Complaint) of sexual harassment against the Applicant. Her complaint included that the Applicant approached her at the 2023 Christmas party, placed his hand on her back and began moving it over her chest and breast. Complainant 3 said in her complaint that the Applicant told her "you have a great figure and that you are going to hold a child really well." and that "I hope you and your husband are having loads of sex so that you can have a baby."[40] A copy of the Complainant 3 Complaint was not raised with the Applicant while he remained unfit for work.

[24] On 4 May 2024, the Respondent sent a further email to the Applicant noting an extract from the IME Report that raised the prospect of a return to work and again reinforced that the Respondent would require a medical certificate with a definitive timeframe with a view to developing a return-to-work plan. Dr Ward states that no response was forthcoming from the Applicant.[41] On 2 August 2024, a medical report was furnished to Gallagher Bassett by the Applicant's treating medical practitioner relevantly stating that the Applicant was 'deemed incapable of returning to any form of work for a minimum period of 10-12 months with regular reviews of his condition.'[42]

[25] On 21 May 2024, Mr Jamieson sent a further email to the Applicant alerting him that his medical certificate was about to expire and that a further certificate was required. The Applicant was also advised that the Respondent was working to appoint an appropriate independent person who could liaise with the Applicant, his GP and the Respondent to assist with a return-to-work plan.[43]

[26] In June 2024, the Applicant's network access and windows profile automatically deactivated in compliance with the Respondent's security protocols according to Dr Ward. She further states that this was an in-built security measure that operates where an individual has not logged into their account for more than 3 months. It was she states an automated process and occurred independently of the Respondent's human resources team.[44] The Applicant claimed that the removal of his access to the Respondent's IT system was evidence of predetermination of the outcome of his dismissal.

[27] On 1 July 2024, the Applicant states that he received a text message (the 1st July Text Message) sent to his personal mobile phone which he claims was sent by Ms Winsbury although he did not raise the text message until some months later. The 1st July Text Message stated as follows;

"Hi Firas, I just wanted to reach out to you and let you know how sorry I am about all

the trouble you went through at Stantec for what it's worth. I was talked into making the complaint in return for my role being confirmed at stantec 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 [fingers cross emoji x 2]"

[28] In August 2024, the Respondent advertised a 6-month full-time contract for a Senior HRBP position for Vic/SA region.[45] Ms Rima Makin was successfully recruited for the position on 9 October 2024[46] and was subsequently converted to permanent employment on 22 February 2025.[47] The Applicant claims that Ms Makin was recruited to fill his position, that her initial recruitment for the fixed term role took place several months prior to his termination and her conversion to permanent employment in February 2025 occurred in the weeks prior to his dismissal, which the Applicant claims points to his dismissal having been pre-determined.[48]

[29] Dr Ward rejected that Ms Makin was recruited to replace the Applicant and stated she was an additional hire. She states that had the Applicant returned, the Respondent would have carried the additional position.[49] When cross-examined, Dr Ward stated that the Respondent would have been very comfortable to carry two Senior HRBPs for Vic/SA had the Applicant returned to work. That was because of the additional HR work generated by organisation restructuring and redundancies. She strongly rejected that the Applicant's dismissal was pre-determined.

[30] On 14 August 2024, the Applicant lodged a Form F8C General Protections Non-Dismissal dispute in the Commission. As part of his application, the Applicant referred to the1st July Text Message which he claimed to have received from Ms Winsbury. The Respondent filed its Form F8D reply on19 September 2024. The matter was subject to conciliation by the Commission on 7 November 2024 at the conclusion of which the dispute remained unresolved. The Commission then closed the file.

[31] On 25 August 2024, Mr Jamieson wrote to the Applicant requesting a further medical certificate to which the Applicant responded on 23 September 2025 that he would provide it when his doctor returned from leave. He subsequently advised Mr Jamieson that 'Given that there is a current legal dispute between myself and Stantec, I have received legal advice from my solicitor to cease all forms of communication and hold off on any requests till both parties have a clearer understanding of their respective position'. Mr Jamieson then pressed the Applicant in a response on 26 September 2025 to provide a medical certificate from the following day.[50] Mr Jamieson sent a further email on 7 November 2025 in the following terms;

Stantec refers to the conciliation conference held on 7 November 2024.

We note that you agreed with the Deputy President Masson, that Stantec can now engage directly with you to work towards a return to work, which we anticipate will be on a graduated return basis in the first instance although that is of course a matter for you to decide. As it was communicated to you, any return to work will include Stantec presenting you with the outcome of the investigations in relation to complaints made against you and complaints made by you and other procedural matters that may follow thereafter for all outstanding matters to be closed out.

In light of the above, would you please confirm to me by 11 November 2024, that you will seek to obtain and provide a medical certificate by close of business on 14 November 2024 that you are fit to be presented with the outcome of the investigations undertaken to date and other procedural matters that may follow.

In the event the above timeframes are not able to be met, Stantec will engage an Independent Occupational Physician which at Stantec's expense, to undertake an independent assessment of your current capacity and prognosis to return to work. Given the objective is to facilitate a return to work, we would expect that you engage in the process as a matter of good faith.

[32] On 4 September 2024, Gallagher Basset notified the Respondent that the Applicant had lodged an application for review of Gallagher Bassett's decision to reject his WorkCover claim and that he had received a Genuine Dispute Outcome Certificate from Accident Compensation Conciliation Service on 5 August 2024. Dr Ward states that the Respondent agreed with Gallagher Bassett's assessment that the Applicant's WorkCover claim was unsubstantiated and that there was no proper basis for the claim as the Respondent had taken reasonable management action in a reasonable way.[52]

[33] On 18 November 2025, Mr Jamieson sent a further email to the Applicant and amongst a range of matters raised in the email, again confirmed that in order for the Respondent to engage directly with the Applicant regarding the investigation outcome, he needed to provide a medical clearance.[53]

[34] On 21 January 2025, Mr Jamieson sent a further email to the Applicant in the following terms;

Thank you for your email which I received over the Christmas / New Year office closedown. We returned from leave this week and have now had the opportunity to review and respond to your email dated 30 December 2024.

I can confirm that Stantec of course remains committed to working with you on a graduated return to work (GRTW) and trust your recovery is going well. Should you be able to return to work, we would appreciate confirmation of details from your medical advisor that you are able to do so, including the anticipated date of your return, details of your initial capacity and likely GRTW for the first two to three weeks.

Furthermore, as requested previously the medical advisor must confirm that you have the capacity to attend meeting(s) to discuss and close out the investigations which commenced last year, including the allegations and complaints made against you as well as your complaint of bullying against Paul Broad.

The meeting(s) will be attended by Kylie Ward, HR Director APAC, and me. In the first instance, once you are back at work, communications would primarily be with Kylie Ward, particularly as we close out the investigation matters.

I look forward to hearing from you and to discussing a potential graduated return to work.

[35] On 7 February 2025 the Respondent received an email from Steadfast Life, which is the Respondent's income protection insurer providing an update on the Applicant's claim, namely that claim payments were scheduled to be made through to the of April 2025 in line with the Applicant's medical certificates.[55] Dr Ward rejected the Applicant's claim that he had suffered significant financial loss because of anything the Respondent had done. She referred to the rejection of his workers compensation claim and the rejection of his resultant appeal of that decision.[56]

[36] On 22 February 2025, Mr Jameison sent an email to the Applicant in which he asked him to suggest accommodations that the Respondent might implement to assist the Applicant participate in the investigation process.[57] No response was received.

[37] On 25 February 2025, the Applicant's legal representative Jewell Hancock, sent a letter to the Respondent outlining the Applicant's claims against the Respondent. As part of the basis for the Applicant's claims against the Respondent, the Applicant restated his claim that he had received the 1st July Text Message from Ms Winsbury.[58] A meeting between the Applicant and the representatives of the Respondent regarding the allegations of sexual harassment of Ms Winsbury was held on 26 February 2025.[59]

[38] On 3 March 2025, the Respondent sent the Applicant a show cause letter[60] (the Show Cause Letter) via his representative Jewell Hancock. The letter stated that a number of allegations made by Ms Winsbury were substantiated and proposed a disciplinary outcome of a final warning. The Respondent also raised the Complainant 3 Complaint for the first time with the Applicant, stating that it had been unable to raise it previously because the Applicant had not been fit for work. A copy of the Complainant 3 Complaint was enclosed with the Show Cause Letter.

[39] The Show Cause Letter also provided the Applicant with the investigation findings made in response to the Broad Bullying Complaints in which 17 allegations were made by the Applicant. The findings made were that the allegations of bullying or undermining by Mr Broad of the Applicant were unsubstantiated. The Respondent also found that some of the Applicant's allegations were insubordinate and/or demonstrated an unwillingness of the Applicant to accept any difference of opinion from Mr Broad, which suggested the management relationship had become dysfunctional. The Respondent expressed concern that the employment relationship had consequently become untenable and that the findings of insubordinate behaviour and vexatious allegations were in its preliminary view, a valid reason for the termination of the Applicant's employment.

[40] The Applicant was required to respond to the matters raised in the Complainant 3 Complaint and the proposed disciplinary outcome by 7 March 2025. The option of scheduling a further meeting to provide a response was offered. In subsequent correspondence exchanged between the Respondent and Jewell Hancock, the Applicant's representative sought and was granted an extension of time for the Applicant to provide a response to the Show Cause Letter. Mr Nottle of Jewell Hancock also requested and was provided a signed copy of Complainant 3's Complaint against the Applicant.[61] In these proceedings, the Applicant challenged the validity of Complainant 3's Complaint, claiming it was not created in April 2024 but rather was created on 18 March 2025. He also raised the timeframe between the complaint being signed and provided to him, casting doubt on the validity of the complaint. He also claimed to have evidence of the 'digital fingerprint' of the document to support the claim that it was not genuine,[62] although that evidence was not before the Commission.

[41] When questioned on the timing and veracity of the Complainant 3 Complaint, Dr Ward was adamant that the complaint was signed by Complainant 3 on 16 April 2024. She stated that the delay in providing the complaint to the Applicant was simply because the Respondent was waiting on a medical certificate from the Applicant that established he was medically fit to participate in the disciplinary process. As to the Applicant's claimed evidence of the 'digital fingerprint' of the Complainant 3 Complaint, Ms Ward was unable to comment beyond speculation that it might have simply recorded the date on which it was provided to the Applicant.

[42] On 11 March 2025, the Applicant attempted to contact Complainant 3.[63] This attempted contact by the Applicant prompted Mr Naidu to send a letter to the Applicant via Jewell Hancock in the following terms;

It has come to our attention that your client has made attempts to contact [Complainant 3] earlier today. We anticipate it may be in relation to the witness statement provided yesterday.

Stantec is treating [Complainant 3]'s complaint as a confidential investigation which is ongoing and further note your client is still an employee of Stantec. In the circumstances we find it highly inappropriate that your client is attempting to contact Complainant 3, a key witness in the investigation which may amongst other things undermine the investigation process noting that your client is currently formulating a response to the allegations.

Furthermore, your client as a senior human resources practitioner is likely to be aware of his obligations in relation to confidential investigation matters and particularly where he is subject of a complaint, having conducted investigations himself.

In light of the above and in the circumstances, we suggest that your client immediately desist from contacting Complainant 3.

Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.

[43] When cross examined on why he attempted to contact Complainant 3 on 11 March 2025, the Applicant claimed that on reading her allegations against him, he was shocked and instinctively called her. He rejected that he had done so with a view to interfering with or undermining the investigation and disciplinary process. He agreed that the attempted contact was inappropriate and conceded that previous correspondence in relation to Ms Winsbury's complaint had made clear the need to respect the confidentiality of the process. He did however attempt to distinguish his attempt to contact Complainant 3 on the basis that Complainant 3's allegations were not expressly covered by the letter dated 20 March 2024[65] setting out Ms Winsbury's allegations.

[44] On 12 March 2024, Jewell Hancock provided the Applicant's show cause response[66] (the Show Cause Response). In variously denying the previously raised allegations of Ms Winsbury and the fresh allegations of Complainant 3, the Applicant represented for a 3rd time that Ms Winsbury had had sent the 1st July Text Message to him. He also provided a screenshot of the alleged text message which lists the date of the screenshot as '4 Mar'.[67] This was the first time the Applicant provided a copy of the alleged text message from Ms Winsbury.

[45] On 14 Mar 2025, Dr Ward spoke with and then emailed Ms Winsbury at 3.07pm, attaching the screenshot of the 1st July Text Message alleged to have been sent by her to the Applicant. Dr Ward requested Ms Winsbury to advise whether the text message was fraudulent and not written by Ms Winsbury. Ms Winsbury responded in the following terms;

I can hand on heart confirm to yourself and MJ that I did not send this at any point.

My main concern here is that he has 'somehow' merged this text with our existing communication, and I believe this could have been done with photo shop.

[46] On 20 March 2025 the Respondent sent a letter to the Applicant advising him of the termination his employment (the Letter of Termination) which took immediate effect.[68] The Letter of Termination relevantly stated as follows:

Our 3 March 2025 letter to your lawyer, amongst other things:

(a) put you on notice that Stantec was considering a Final Written Warning for the serious misconduct in which you had engaged, which included a course of coercive and controlling conduct of a sexual nature towards two (2) subordinate women (paragraphs 12 to 22), despite an earlier warning not to engage in such conduct and your awareness that the conduct was not acceptable;

(b) alerted you to a statement concerning a third and serious sexual harassment claim made against you (paragraph 4), a copy of which Stantec provided to your lawyer on 11 March 2025, and asked for your response;

(c) put to you Stantec's preliminary view that your insubordinate behaviour and conduct in making vexatious allegations (paragraphs 23 to 61 of that letter) may have rendered your employment untenable, giving Stantec a valid reason to dismiss you (paragraph 63); and

(d) invited your response, by close of business on 7 March 2025, to the proposed disciplinary outcomes.

Your lawyer's letter of 12 March 2025 sets out your responses, and while we repeat only the following extracts, we have taken the entire letter into account. Those responses include denying any misconduct, asserting that there 'is nothing improper in [your] behaviour' and calling a final written warning 'unreasonable and excessive', particularly in light of the assertions in paragraph 4 below.

On page 2 of your lawyer's 12 March 2025 letter you asserted that Erin Winsbury contacted you on 1 July 2024, 'entirely of her own volition, stating:

Hi Firas, I just wanted to reach out to you and let you know how sorry I am about all the trouble you went through at Stantec for what it's worth. I was talked into making the complaint in return for my role being confirmed at stantec [sic] 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'

We are satisfied that your assertion is untrue, in that Erin did not, in fact, send the message alleged, or any such message, to you on 1 July 2024 or at any time. Stantec is greatly concerned that the message appears to be a self-serving fiction and an attempt to mislead your employer so as to obtain a significantly lesser disciplinary response than is warranted in all the circumstances. The deception is serious and destroys the trust that Stantec has to have in you for your employment to continue. Alone, or in concert with the matters summarised in paragraph 2 (above), it justifies the summary termination of your employment.

On 11 March 2025, after Stantec sent your lawyer the statement to which paragraph 2(b) above refers, you attempted to contact the complainant author of that statement, despite your experience as a Senior Human Resources Business Partner, including in conducting investigations, and the directions issued to you in relation to the earlier investigations, including an express written direction "that this is a confidential matter, and [...] not to discuss in any way, the content of the investigation with any other Stantec employees [or to] do anything that may be construed as retaliation against anyone you think may have been a complainant or who participated in this investigation [and that] Any breach of this direction will be considered a serious disciplinary matter". Stantec wrote to your lawyer that day (11 March 2025) demanding the immediate cessation of all attempts at contact. As set out in that email, the attempted contact was highly inappropriate and may have undermined the investigation, particularly at a time when you were yet to provide a response to the allegations that had been put.

While we could have followed a show cause process, we are satisfied that:

(a) your actions have already destroyed the employment relationship;

(b) your response, as set out in your lawyer's 12 March 2025 letter, demonstrates no regard for the employees you have impacted or remorse for that impact or your actions, and instead reinforces that if your employment were to continue, Stantec should only expect an extension or recurrence of the pattern of inappropriate, unsafe and unlawful interactions with others, contrary to the duty to provide a safe place of work that is not hostile on the grounds of sex;

(c) no matter what response you gave in the course of any show cause process, it would not be acceptable to Stantec and would instead be only self-serving and misleading, in an attempt to reduce artificially the severity of any disciplinary response; and

(d) in all the circumstances, and the matters listed in this paragraph (above) in particular, dismissal is inevitable and so there is no point in a show cause process.

8. The decision takes effect immediately and so your employment ends today.

[47] On 21 March 2025, despite being directed in the Letter of Termination to return all company property, the Applicant advised Mr Jamieson by email that he would not return his laptop until proceedings in the present matter were concluded and that he did not have the mobile phone, claiming to have left it in his work cabinet at the Collins Street office.[69] This response prompted the Respondent's legal representative to contact Jewell Hancock and advise that the Respondent required the Applicant to return all company property.[70] Jewell Hancock replied that it had ceased to act for the Applicant.[71] On 13 May 2025, a courier was able to collect the laptop from the Applicant on the third attempt, but he has not returned or accounted for the large format mobile phone purchased for him.[72]

Erin Winsbury, Complainant 3 and Paul Broad Bullying Complaints

[48] As earlier stated, formal complaints were made by Ms Winsbury on 20 February 2024 and Complainant 3 on 16 April 2024, although Complainant 3's allegations were not put to the Applicant until the Show Cause Letter was sent to the Applicant on 3 March 2025. The Applicant also made allegations against Paul Broad on 14 February 2024. The Applicant was cross examined in relation to each of these matters.

[49] He variously responded as follows in relation to questions put to him regarding Ms Winsbury's allegations;

Agreed that during November 2023 he had overheard Ms Winsbury having a private conversation with a police officer on her phone but denied subsequently discussing his personal relationships with Ms Winsbury;

Denied disparaging Mr Broad during discussions with Ms Winsbury;

Denied contacting Amanda Tran after the December 2023 Christmas party and asking questions about Ms Winsbury's immediate post party movements and activities;

Denied using the term 'good girl' in addressing Ms Winsbury when she had delivered good work;

Denied questioning Ms Winsbury in an aggressive tone regarding any intimate relationships she may have had with work colleagues; and

Denied each of the allegations set out at paragraph 21 of the Show Cause Letter although he recalled telling Ms Winsbury he was disappointed in her and that she needed do better for herself but rejected that he had slut shamed or gaslit her.

[50] In respect to Complainant 3's allegations, the Applicant responded as follows during cross examination:

Agreed that he had greeted her at the 2023 Christmas party but rejected that he had seen her across the room given his eyesight impairment;

Denied moving to her left side, putting his hand on her back then moving his hand to touch her chest and breasts; and

Denied making statements that she had a good figure, that she would carry a child well and that he hoped she and her husband were having lots of sex so that they could have a child.

[51] The Applicant was cross examined in relation to the bullying complaints he made about Mr Broad. He responded as follows:

His complaints about Mr Broad were reasonably based and were not insubordinate;

Denied that the complaints levelled at Mr Broad made the professional relationship unworkable;

Rejected the claim attributed to him that Mr Broad was not allowed to provide Ms Winsbury with positive feedback;

Accepts that he may have made statements regarding Ms Winsbury to the effect that she had claimed to have COVID-19 so that she could attend a Taylor Swift concert;

Confirmed that he had complained about Mr Broad hiring Ms Winsbury despite the Applicant's concerns; and

Confirmed that he had complained about allocation of work to one of his subordinates, 'Aaron', by Mr Broad without Mr Broad having consulted the Applicant. He accepted however that 'Aaron' was also a subordinate of Mr Broad.

[52] Much of the evidence led during the proceedings went to the misconduct allegation that the Applicant had falsely and repeatedly claimed that he had received the 1st July Text Message from Ms Winsbury. In her evidence, Ms Winsbury vehemently denied having sent a message to the Applicant on 1 July 2024 in the terms set out at [27] above or at all. She states that the last time she had direct contact with the Applicant was in mid-January 2024 and the last text message exchanged with the Applicant from her phone which has the number XXXX XXX 381 (Erin Winsbury Phone) was on 20 March 2024.[73] She further states that the Applicant attempted to facetime her on 3 June 2025.[74] Ms Winsbury was adamant in her evidence that she did not send the Applicant a text message on 1 July 2024.[75] She produced a report obtained from Telstra that recorded her calls and texts made or received on 1 July 2024 from her personal phone. The Telstra log shows that no text messages were sent from Erin Winsbury's Personal Phone to the Applicants Personal Phone or the Applicant's Work Phone on that day.[76]

[53] In support of the Applicant's claim that he received the 1st July Text Message from Ms Winsbury, the Applicant produced in his reply material a screen recording taken by him on 1 July 2025 (the Screen Recording) from his personal mobile phone. The Screen Recording shows the Applicant scrolling through messages he had received from Ms Winsbury, including the 1st July Text Message. According to the Applicant the Screen Recording reveals that the 1st July Text Message he claims to have received from Ms Winsbury on his personal phone was genuine. Mr Cardell-Ree, in his evidence, converted the screen recording provided by the Applicant to a series of screen shots.[77] Those screen shots reveal at page 34 of Annexure ACR-1 to Mr Cardell-Ree's statement that the Applicant had recorded Ms Winsbury's work number in his personal phone contact list as XXXX XXX 579. That number was in fact the number attached to the Applicant's Work Phone. The Applicant had not previously identified in his evidence that the 1st July Text Message had been sent from Applicant's Work Phone to the Applicant's Personal Phone but conceded that point during cross examination.

[54] The claim by the Applicant that he had received a text message from Ms Winsbury on 1 July 2024 in the terms set out above at [27] was initially raised in his Form F8C filed on 14 August 2024, was restated in correspondence from his legal representative on 25 February 2025, was again stated in his Show Cause Response on 12 March 2025 and repeated in his witness statement and submissions in these proceedings. In all of the correspondence, statements and submissions in which the Applicant made and restated the claim, he referred to the message he received on 1 July 2024 as being a 'text message' except for his most recent submissions in reply filed on 2 July 2025.

[55] In his submissions in reply the Applicant changed his description of the 1st July Text Message to that of it being an iMessage rather than a text message. This was the first occasion he referred to it as being an iMessage which he claims utilises end-to-end encryption and is routed through Apple's proprietary servers and not through a carrier's network. The Applicant, when questioned on this change in his description of the message, stated that his previous description of the message as a text message was 'loose language.' The Applicant was then taken during cross examination to page 27 of Annexure ACR-1 to Mr Cardell-Ree's statement. The screenshot on that page included the start of the 1st July Text Message and immediately above it had the words "Text Message - SMS 1 July 2024 at 5.39pm." It was put to the Applicant that these words appeared to show that the message was in fact a text message, not an iMessage. The Applicant disagreed and claimed that an iMessage converts to a text message immediately following the iMessage being deleted by the sender. He conceded that this was the first time he had raised this point and had led no evidence on the point.

[56] A series of propositions were put to the Applicant during cross examination. These were as follows. Firstly, that he had sent the message to himself by sending it from his work phone to his personal phone, and that it had not been sent by Ms Winsbury as claimed by him. Secondly, that he had altered the contact numbers for Ms Winsbury in his personal phone to record her work contact number as XXXX XXX 579, that being his former work phone number. Thirdly, that he did this so that when a message was received on his personal phone from his work phone it would appear that the message had been sent by Ms Winsbury to his personal phone. Fourthly, that the 1st July Text Message was an elaborate and dishonest ruse on his part to make it appear that Ms Winsbury had been pressured in to making the sexual harassment complaints, thus revealing her complaints about the Applicant to be baseless and that she was remorseful for having made what the Applicant contends were false complaints about him.

[57] The Applicant resisted all of the above propositions. He maintained that he had left his work phone in a cupboard at the Respondent's Collins Street offices and stated his belief that Ms Winsbury had obtained the Applicant's Work Phone from where it was stored and then used it to send the 1st July Text Message. When questioned why he had left the work phone in a cupboard in the office, he responded that he often left his work phone at work.

[58] The Applicant was also questioned on whether he had previously received text messages from Ms Winsbury from a different number to that he had received the text on 1 July 2024. He replied that he could not recall whether she had used a previous number and then went on to explain that sometime after he left the workplace for medical reasons in March 2024 and before 1 July 2024 he changed Ms Winsbury's work contact number in his personal phone from that of her personal phone number to that of the Applicant's Work Phone number. He was asked why he did this and responded that he assumed that Ms Winsbury was using his work phone while he was not at work even though he had not discussed that with Ms Winsbury.

[59] The Applicant denied having set up Ms Winsbury's profile in the contacts in his personal phone so that there were two numbers in her profile, those being her personal number and the Applicant's Work Phone number. After being pressed, the Applicant conceded that XXXX XXX 381 was Ms Winsbury's personal phone number. Ms Winsbury confirmed that was the only number she had used during her employment with the Respondent and used to interact with the Applicant. She also confirmed that she had two contact numbers for the Applicant in her contacts list in her phone.[78]

[60] The Applicant was also questioned as to how he had made a facetime call to the Applicant's personal phone on 3 June 2025 if he had, as claimed, recorded his old work phone number in his personal phone as the only contact number for Ms Winsbury sometime after 1 March 2024 and before 1 July 2024. He agreed he had made a 'pocket call' to Ms Winsbury on 3 June 2025 but rejected that it was made to her personal phone. He explained that the call would have gone to her Apple ID and not her personal number. This evidence was in direct conflict with Ms Winsbury's evidence that she received the facetime call to her personal phone number.

[61] It was further put to the Applicant that Ms Winsbury resigned her employment in April 2024 some two months before the 1st July Text Message was sent to the Applicant's Personal Phone from the Applicant's Work Phone. He speculated that Ms Winsbury had held on to the Applicant's Work Phone and used it to send the 1st July Text Message to his personal phone after she had resigned her employment. He maintained the position that he was a victim of Ms Winsbury's vindicative and dishonest conduct and that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegation that he fabricated the 1st July Text Message. The Applicant refused to concede that he had sent the 1st July Text Message to himself and stated that he did not have the Applicant's Work Phone in his possession when the 1st July 2024 message was sent to his personal phone.

[62] The Applicant was questioned on whether, had he been given an opportunity to respond to the fraudulent 1st July text Message allegation, whether his position would have been the same as he maintained in these proceedings. He confirmed in response he would have maintained the position that Ms Winsbury had sent the text message, and he would not have conceded he had fabricated the 1st July Text Message to make it appear as if it had come from her.

[63] During cross examination, Ms Winsbury strongly resisted the Applicant's assertion that she had obtained the Applicant's Work Phone and used it to send the 1St July Text Message. She stated that she had never seen the Applicant's Work Phone in the cabinet the Applicant referred to and strongly denied having picked it up. She clarified that the cabinet referred to by the Applicant was not a 'HR' cabinet in any case but was Amanda Tran's cabinet, even though she accepted it had been used at one point to store documentation related to redundancies.

[64] It was also put to Ms Winsbury during cross examination that she had been disgruntled with the Applicant because he had required her to produce a medical certificate for an absence in February 2024 and because she had been counselled regarding her conduct of an 'illegal bag search' and her late closure of the office bar fridge at an after-work office event in early 2024. Ms Winsbury flatly denied she had made allegations against the Applicant to Mr Broad in retaliation. The accusation that her disgruntlement with the Applicant led to her sending the 1St July Text Message was strongly rejected.

[65] A threshold issue to be determined in this matter is whether the Applicant has been dismissed from his employment. The circumstances in which a person is taken to be "dismissed" are set out in s 386 of the Act. Section 386(1) relevantly provides as follows:

(a) the person's employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer's initiative; or

(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.

[66] Section 386(2) of the Act sets out circumstances where an employee has not been dismissed, none of which are presently relevant. There was no dispute, and I find that the Applicant's employment with the Respondent terminated at the initiative of the Respondent.

[67] Having found that the Applicant was dismissed with the meaning of s 386(1) of the Act, I am now obliged under section 396 of the Act, to decide the following matters before considering the merits of the application:

(a) whether the application was made within the period required in subsection 394(2);

(b) whether the person was protected from unfair dismissal;

(c) whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d) whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.

[68] Relevant to the determination of the preliminary matters I am satisfied that;

the Applicant was dismissed on 20 March 2025 and filed his unfair dismissal application on 31 March 2025, that latter date being within 21 days of the date of his dismissal;

at the time of the Applicant's dismissal the Respondent employed approximately 2,200 employees and is therefore not a small business employer within the meaning of s 23 of the Act;

the Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent on 11 January 2022 and at the time of his dismissal had been employed for a period of over three years, that period being more than the minimum employment period of six months;

the Applicant's annual base salary was approximately $157,743.56 and therefore was below the high-income threshold; and

the Applicant was not dismissed due to the Respondent no longer requiring the Applicant's job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the Respondent's enterprise.

[69] Having considered each of the initial matters, I am satisfied that the application was made within the required period in subsection 394(2), the Applicant was a person protected from unfair dismissal, the small business fair dismissal code does not apply, and the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. I am now required to consider the merits of the application and it is to that I now turn.

Was the dismissal harsh, unjust, or unreasonable?

[70] Section 387 of the Act provides that, considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, the Commission must take into account:

(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person's capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and

(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and

(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and

(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and

(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person - whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and

(f) the degree to which the size of the employer's enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.

[71] Before considering the matters set out in s 387 of the Act, it is necessary for me to make general findings about witness credit. Turning to the Respondent's witnesses first, I found each of those witnesses to be candid, forthright, and consistent in their evidence. In Ms Ward's case, she was clear but not dogmatic in her evidence. Where she could not recall something, she said so. This can be seen in her responses to questioning on the Applicant's claim that he had been directed by her not to undertake an investigation into the 2023 Christmas Party. Rather than deny the Applicant's claim as to what she said at the time, she answered that she could not recall the statement. I found her response to be credible. As regards to Ms Winsbury, she was clearly unsettled and stressed by being questioned by the Applicant but remained resolute in her responses. She came across as a witness of credit.

[72] Turning to the Applicant, I found him to be an unimpressive witness. He was reluctant to make concessions on matters that plainly required a concession to be made. Much of his evidence given during cross examination appeared to be made up 'on the fly.' He also made a number of unsubstantiated assertions. His evidence also changed through the course of the proceedings, and he made a number of claims and statements that on their face appear misogynistic and were unsupported by any evidence. The following examples are provided;

The Applicant claimed that he held concerns about Ms Winsbury's recruitment and that as a candidate she was at the 'bottom of the pile.' This claim is plainly false as it is directly contradicted by his own description in an email to the recruitment consultant that Ms Winsbury was 'a close second' to his preferred candidate and that she would be a 'great fit' for the organisation. Beyond mere assertion, there is no evidence that he held or raised genuine concerns about Ms Winsbury at the time of her recruitment. He reluctantly conceded the inaccuracy of his claim that Ms Winsbury was at the 'bottom of the pile' during cross examination.

When questioned about the formal warning he received in relation to Complainant 1's complaints about his conduct, the Applicant stated that he received the warning for only one matter and that was the conflict-of-interest issue. When taken to a copy of the warning, he remained reluctant to concede that the warning also dealt with his inappropriate conduct and failure to respect professional behaviour in his interactions with Complainant 1. The letter plainly dealt with two matters, not one as claimed by the Applicant. His unwillingness to make a necessary concession was inexplicable.

The Applicant referred in his submissions to several case authorities that were simply wrong. He 'doubled down' and insisted they were correct and when directed to provide a copy of those authorities, provided a number of different authorities and claimed that some of the authorities that he initially referred to had been removed from the Commission's website. It would have been appropriate for the Applicant to have conceded that some of the authorities were not correct.

The Applicant claims that he was not provided with the outcome of the Broad Bullying Complaints. This is plainly incorrect. He was provided with several pages of detailed findings in the Show Cause Letter. His maintenance of the claim is simply misguided or disingenuous.

The Applicant made a series of claims both in his Form F2 application and in his filed material that reflects poorly on him, appears misogynistic and were unsupported by any evidence. These claims included; questioning the competence of Complainant 1 despite recommending her for a bonus, stating that the women who made complaints against him were not competent or qualified for their roles, a female project manager was appointed despite lacking the required skills, a female business lead was exited during her probation, that her recruitment was justified on the basis of increasing female representation and that Dr Ward pursued female participation rather than recruit on the basis of merit.

The Applicant failed to lead any probative evidence going to his alleged dishonesty in respect of the 1st July Text Message other than claiming to have received the message from Ms Winsbury, although he failed to produce a copy of the text message until 12 March 2025. His evidence and submissions made no reference to his having received the text message from the Applicant's Work Phone. In fact, as late as his reply submissions he maintained that a forensic review of Ms Winsbury's mobile phone device was required. The concession that the message was sent from his work phone was only made when he was confronted with the screen shots provided by Mr Cardell-Ree in his evidence. The Applicant then claimed for the first time in the proceedings during cross examination that Ms Winsbury secured his work phone sometime after 1 March 2024, retained that phone after she left the organisation in April 2024 and then used it to send a message to him on 1 July 2024.

[73] The above are but some examples of the Applicant's persistence in making patently false statements, making unsubstantiated and at times misogynistic claims and demonstrating an unwillingness to make appropriate concessions. This leads me to conclude that the Applicant is not a witness of credit and that where there is conflict in his evidence with the direct evidence of the Respondent's witnesses, I prefer the evidence of the Respondent's witnesses unless otherwise stated below.

Was there a valid reason for the dismissal related to the Applicant's capacity or conduct - s 387(a)?

[74] In order to be a valid reason, the reason for the dismissal should be "sound, defensible or well founded"[79] and should not be "capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced.[80]" However, the Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it were in the position of the employer.[81]

[75] In cases relating to alleged misconduct, the Commission must make a finding, on the evidence provided, whether, on the balance of probabilities, the conduct occurred.[82] It is not enough for an employer to establish that it had a reasonable belief that the termination was for a valid reason.[83] The employer bears the evidentiary onus of proving that the conduct on which it relies took place.[84] In cases such as the present where a serious allegation is made, the Briginshaw standard applies so that any findings, if made, of the misconduct alleged are not made lightly;

"The standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities but 'the nature of the issue necessarily affects the process by which reasonable satisfaction is attained' and such satisfaction 'should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences' or 'by slender and exiguous proofs or circumstances pointing with a wavering finger to an affirmative conclusion."[85]

[76] I now turn to the grounds of misconduct that the Respondent submits establish a valid reason for the Applicant's dismissal. The grounds relied on by the Respondent are that firstly, the Applicant engaged in unrelenting coercive control and predatory sexual behaviour towards multiple young women in the workplace who either reported to him (in the case of Ms Winsbury) or who correctly regarded him as in a position of authority in his senior position in the human resources team (in the case of Complainant 3). Secondly, the Applicant attempted to contact Complainant 3 after he was notified of her allegations against him on 3 March 2025. Thirdly, the Applicant repeatedly mislead his employer through the use of a doctored text message and falsely claimed that Ms Winsbury had been "talked into making" the complaints against the Applicant.

[77] Dealing with the first ground relied on by the Respondent, it brought no direct evidence from the complainants whose allegations were said by the Respondent to have been substantiated through the course of the Respondent's investigations. There was no lack of material going to those investigations, however as the complainants were not called to give evidence in these proceedings there was no opportunity to test the allegations put forward by them during the course of their employment with the Respondent. While I accept the Respondent's submission that I am able to weigh the material that is in evidence including the hearsay evidence provided by Dr Ward, the allegations of coercive control, and predatory sexual behaviour are extremely serious allegations that require me to have particular regard to the 'Briginshaw standard'.

[78] I have made findings about the Applicant's credit and as will be clear from consideration of further allegations below, I regard the Applicant to be dishonest and untrustworthy in his evidence. This causes me to approach the Applicant's evidence on these allegations with great caution. That said, he vehemently denied the allegations put against him of exercising coercive control and engaging in predatory sexual behaviour towards female staff of the Respondent. As no direct witness evidence was put forward by the Respondent to rebut the Applicant's denial, the hearsay evidence advanced by the Respondent provides a fragile base upon which to find the Applicant engaged in the alleged basis. I am consequently not satisfied on the evidence before me that the Applicant engaged in coercive control and/or predatory sexual behaviour towards multiple young women in the workplace.

[79] Turning to the next ground relied on by the Respondent, the Applicant is alleged to have attempted to contact Complainant 3 by phone on 11 March 2025 after he became aware on 3 March 2025 of the allegations made by Complainant 3 about his conduct at the 2023 Christmas Party. The Applicant agreed that he had attempted to call Complainant 3 as alleged. He conceded the conduct was inappropriate but justified it on the basis that he was shocked at the allegations and then suggested that the confidentiality obligations spelt out in the allegations put to him regarding Ms Winsbury's complaints did not apply to Complainant 3.

[80] The explanations provided by the Applicant are rejected for the following reasons. The Applicant is a senior HR practitioner with many years' experience. It is almost inconceivable that the Applicant would not have been acutely aware of the need to respect the confidentiality of the disciplinary process in circumstances where he himself has had responsibility for conducting or overseeing workplace investigations. The suggestion by him that the confidentiality obligations made clear to him in a letter sent to him on 20 February 2024 in respect of Ms Winsbury's complaints did not apply in the case of Complainant 3 is utterly rejected. While the Applicant denied he called Complainant 3 with the intention of inappropriately influencing an investigation, the action was in breach of the Applicant's obligation to respect the confidentiality of the disciplinary process. It constitutes misconduct.

[81] The third allegation relied by the Respondent to establish a valid reason for the Applicant's dismissal is that he repeatedly mislead it through the use of a doctored text message that falsely stated Ms Winsbury had been "talked into making" the complaints against the Applicant. As earlier stated, the Applicant made this claim on a number of occasions prior to his dismissal and has maintained that allegation against Ms Winsbury through these proceedings. For the reasons that follow I find the allegation by the Applicant that he was sent a text message by Ms Winsbury on 1 July 2024 to be a complete fiction. It is a cynical fabrication designed by the Applicant to discredit and undermine Ms Winsbury, the allegations made by her and the disciplinary process undertaken by the Respondent in response to those allegations.

[82] Before turning to why the Applicant's narrative is completely implausible and deliberately false, it is necessary to set out what now appears to be the Applicant's explanation for how he received the 1st July Text Message on his personal phone. He asserts that Ms Winsbury was disgruntled with him about matters including a requirement to provide a medical certificate and concerns he held over other her performance and conduct. It is this disgruntlement that is said by the Applicant to have led Ms Winsbury to obtain the Applicant's Work Phone when he left that phone in a cabinet in the Collins Street office of the Respondent when he took an extended period of leave due to his medical condition from 1 March 2024.

[83] While the Applicant agrees he did not discuss his work phone with Ms Winsbury after 1 March 2024, the Applicant says he assumed Ms Winsbury would use it in his absence and consequently altered Ms Winsbury's contact details in his personal phone so that his work phone number attached to Ms Winsbury's contact details. Once in her possession, Ms Winsbury is accused by the Applicant of retaining the phone even after she resigned from the organisation in April 2024 and then used the Applicant's Work Phone to send the text message to the Applicant's Personal Phone on 1 July 2024. The message attributed by the Applicant to Ms Winsbury is clearly remorseful and is relied on by the Applicant to discredit her complaints against him and the subsequent investigation that ultimately led to his dismissal. The Applicant's narrative which is summarised above suggests behaviour on the part of Ms Winsbury that is both vindictive and Machiavellian in its execution and is simply not believable for the following reasons.

[84] Firstly, the Applicant's Work Phone was a large screen phone specifically requested by, purchased for and issued to the Applicant. There is no evidence beyond the Applicant's claim that the Applicant's Work Phone was ever in the possession of any employee of the Respondent other than him. Nor is there any evidence that it was ever in Ms Winsbury's possession. She rejected that assertion when it was put to her by the Applicant. She was credible in her denial which I accept based on the conflict with the Applicant's evidence for reasons earlier set out in dealing with witness credit.

[85] Secondly, the Applicant's claim that he left his work phone in the cabinet at the Respondent's Collins Street offices lacks credibility. He failed to alert anyone to that fact when he went off on sick leave on 1 March 2024. He also failed to adequately explain why he left the phone at work other than to say he regularly left his phone at work. That explanation is difficult to reconcile with his stated need for a large screen work phone given his vision impairment.

[86] Thirdly, the Applicant's evidence that he changed Ms Winsbury's contact details in his personal phone to reflect his assumption that she would use the Applicant's Work Phone in his absence is inherently implausible. There was no communication between Ms Winsbury and the Applicant before, on or after 1 March 2024 that would have provided the Applicant with any basis to assume Ms Winsbury would be using his work phone he claims to have left at the workplace. Nor does the Applicant's explanation of changing Ms Winsbury's contact details in his personal phone square with his 'pocket call' from his personal phone to Ms Winsbury's personal phone in June 2025.

[87] I accept that the Applicant did change Ms Winsbury's phone contact details in his personal phone but not for the reasons claimed by the Applicant, that is, based on his assumption she was using his work phone. Rather, he changed or entered the additional contact details so that when a text message was sent from his work phone to his personal phone, it would appear without closer scrutiny of the text that it was sent by Ms Winsbury.

[88] Fourthly, up until his cross examination in these proceedings, the Applicant maintained the claim that he was sent a text message from Ms Winsbury on 1 July 2024. He refused to accept Ms Winsbury's evidence obtained from Telstra showing her call and text activity from her personal phone on 1 July 2024 and demanded a forensic analysis of her mobile phone device. This was despite the fact that the 1st July Text Message was not sent from Ms Winsbury's personal phone and was in fact sent from the Applicant's Work Phone. This is a matter the Applicant would have been aware of if, as he claims, he changed Ms Winsbury's contact details to reflect her use of his work phone. He failed to disclose the fact that the text message was sent to his personal phone from his work phone at any time prior to that concession during cross examination.

[89] Fifthly, the allegation now advanced that Ms Winsbury obtained, retained after her resignation and then used the Applicant's Work Phone to send the 1st July Text Message to the Applicant's Personal Phone was not advanced at any time prior to the Applicant's cross examination. The evidence he gave during cross examination was in my view concocted in response to being forced to concede the text message came from his work phone. The Applicant's belated concession that the 1st July Text Message was sent from his work phone to his personal phone on 1 July 2025 then led to him claiming that Ms Winsbury sent the 1st July Text Message from his work phone. No mention of this claim was made by the Applicant prior to his cross examination.

[90] Sixthly, the Applicant changed his description of the 1st July Text Message in his submissions in reply from that of describing it as a 'text message' in all previous correspondence and material to describing it as 'iMessage'. While he attributed the change to his earlier 'loose language' and sought to explain the difference between an SMS message and an iMessage, no probative evidence was advanced in support of the distinction and how it bore upon the case. That is particularly so when he ultimately conceded that the 1st July Text Message came from the Applicant's Work Phone. Furthermore, the message itself is clearly described as an SMS text message. In these circumstances, his reference to the 1st July Text Message as an iMessage is little more than a 'smokescreen' intended to conceal his dishonesty in fabricating the SMS text message in order to discredit Ms Winsbury.

[91] Seventhly, the Applicant while referring to the 1st July Text Message in his F8 General Protections application lodged in August 2024 and in subsequent correspondence from his legal representatives, only produced a screen shot of the text message on 12 March 2025. It was not until the Screen Recording was produced in his reply material in these proceedings that it was possible to identify the device from which the 1st July Text Message was sent. I am satisfied the Applicant concealed the origins of the 1st July Text Message for the simple reason of avoiding disclosure that the text had been sent from his work phone.

[92] Eighthly, it is difficult to identify what motive Ms Winsbury would have had in seeking to incriminate the Applicant by sending a text message to his personal phone from his work phone. Ms Winsbury resigned and left the Respondent's employment in April 2024, some two months before the 1st July Text Message was sent. One could understand Ms Winsbury having reservations about the Applicant returning to the workplace had she still been employed by the Respondent given the allegations she had made against him That was not the case however as she had resigned and returned to Queensland. She had no need to have any further contact with the Applicant.

[93] For the foregoing reasons I do not accept the Applicant's assertions that Ms Winsbury sent the 1st July Text Message to the Applicant's Personal Phone from the Applicant's Work Phone. The evidence before me leads me to make the following finding. The Applicant did not leave his work phone in a cabinet at the Respondent's Collins Street offices as claimed by him. He retained the work phone after he went off on personal leave around 1 March 2024. He then added additional contact details for Ms Winsbury in his personal phone by assigning his work phone number as Ms Winsbury's work contact. This was done sometime prior to 1 July 2024. He then sent the 1st July Text Message from his work phone to his personal phone. The resultant text message when received on his personal phone appeared to have been sent by Ms Winsbury. The Applicant then represented on repeated occasions prior to and following his dismissal that the 1st July Text Message was a remorseful apologetic text message from Ms Winsbury that undermined her complaints and the subsequent disciplinary action taken against the Applicant.

[94] I am further satisfied that the Applicant's above-described conduct was calculated, dishonest and engaged in for the purpose of discrediting Ms Winsbury and achieving a lesser penalty or withdrawal of the proposed disciplinary action against him. The conduct was not merely a denial of the conduct alleged against him. In the process of denial of the sexual harassment allegations, the gravity of the Applicant's misconduct was aggravated by him literally throwing Ms Winsbury 'under the proverbial bus' by accusing her of dishonest conduct. That is, according to the Applicant, by Ms Winsbury having made false or trumped-up allegations against the Applicant under pressure from others and then using the Applicant's Work Phone to send the 1st July Text Message to the Applicant's Personal Phone as an act of vindictive retaliation after she had left the Respondent's employ. As earlier stated, that narrative is a complete fiction that even the famed spy story novelist John Le Carré would have been impressed by.

[95] I have made findings in relation to the alleged misconduct of the Applicant. I have found that he inappropriately sought to contact Complainant 3 after becoming aware of her allegations against him. I have further found that the Applicant dishonestly fabricated and sent a text message to himself, then represented it as a text message sent to him by Ms Winsbury. I am comfortably satisfied that by this conduct; the Applicant engaged in serious misconduct within the meaning of Reg 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009. The conduct was 'wilful or deliberate behaviour that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment'[86] It establishes a valid reason for his dismissal. This weighs in favour of a finding that the Applicant's dismissal was not unfair.

[96] Notification of a valid reason for termination must be given to an employee protected from unfair dismissal before the decision is made to terminate their employment,[87] and in explicit,[88] plain and clear terms.[89]

[97] It is uncontroversial that the Applicant was notified in the Show Cause Letter that the Respondent was considering a Final Warning in respect of the complaints made by Ms Winsbury. It was also put to the Applicant that it had formed the preliminary view that his vexatious complaints and insubordinate behaviour towards Mr Broad established a valid reason for his dismissal. Complainant 3's Complaint was also provided to the Applicant for the first time, and he was invited to respond to those allegations.

[98] The Applicant was not notified that the Respondent was considering the termination of his employment because of his attempt to contact Complainant 3 following receipt of the Show Cause Letter or in respect his dishonesty in fabricating the 1st July Text Message. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the Applicant was not notified prior to his dismissal of the valid reason for his dismissal that I have found above. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unjust and thereby unfair.

Opportunity to respond to any reason related to capacity or conduct - s 387(c)

[99] An employee protected from unfair dismissal should be provided with an opportunity to respond to any reason for their dismissal relating to their conduct or capacity. An opportunity to respond is to be provided before a decision is taken to terminate the employee's employment.[90]

[100] The opportunity to respond does not require formality and the factor is to be applied in a common-sense way to ensure the employee is treated fairly.[91] Where the employee is aware of the precise nature of the employer's concern about his or her conduct or performance and has a full opportunity to respond to the concern, this is enough to satisfy the requirements.[92]

[101] The Applicant was afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations made by Ms Winsbury, firstly in March 2024 and then in response to the Show Cause Letter of 3 March 2025. He was also given an opportunity to respond to the Complainant 3 Complaints put to him in the Show Cause Letter. Finally, he was afforded an opportunity to respond to the preliminary view the Respondent had formed regarding his conduct in making vexatious complaints about Mr Broad and acting in an insubordinate manner towards him. He was not given an opportunity to respond to the matters now relied upon and found by me to establish a valid reason for his dismissal, that of his attempted contact with Complainant 3 on 11 March 2025 and his dishonesty in relation to the 1st July Text Message.

[102] The Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to respond to matters that I have found establish a valid reason for his dismissal. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the Applicant was provided with a proper opportunity to respond to the reasons relied on for his dismissal. This weighs in favour of a finding that the Applicant's dismissal was unjust and thereby unfair.

[103] Where an employee protected from unfair dismissal has requested a support person be present to assist in discussions relating to the dismissal, an employer should not unreasonably refuse that person being present. The Applicant accepts there was no refusal to allow a support person to be present at discussions relating to his dismissal. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not unfair.

Warnings regarding unsatisfactory performance - s 387(e)

[104] The dismissal did not relate to unsatisfactory performance. This factor is therefore not relevant in the circumstances.

Impact of the size of the Respondent on procedures followed - s 387(f)

[105] The Respondent's Form F3 response indicates that at the time of the Applicant's dismissal, the Respondent employed approximately 2,200 employees. There is no evidence before me, and nor did either party contend, that the Respondent organisation's size impacted on the procedures followed by it in dismissing the Applicant. This factor weighs neutrally in my consideration.

Impact of absence of dedicated human resources management specialist/expertise on procedures followed - s 387(g)

Mr Firas Raghib v Stantec Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2335

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (281 paragraphs)

Mr Firas Raghib v Stantec Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2335 (13 August 2025)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (6)