A quality manager at truck and trailer parts maker Hendrickson Asia Pacific Pty Ltd has lost his unfair dismissal claim. Commissioner Redford found the way he behaved at his own hearing was “entirely consistent” with the way he was said to have behaved in workplace meetings.
The worker joined the company on 7 January 2025 and had several staff reporting to him. Hendrickson dismissed him on 29 May 2026 for what it considered serious misconduct, and he received four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. He applied for a remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 18 June 2026. In [2026] FWC 3929, Commissioner Redford found that none of the factors in s.387 weighed in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair, and dismissed the application.
The hearing became part of the evidence
The worker represented himself. The Commissioner said it is natural for self-represented parties to be nervous or defensive. This worker, he found, went “well beyond” that. He “constantly interrupted the Commission and the other participants in the hearing, and was belligerent, confrontational and antagonistic throughout.”
Under cross-examination the worker denied that his LinkedIn profile, which was in evidence, listed him as working at Hendrickson until August 2026. He denied that his new job carried the same title as his old one, then later said he was doing the same job. He denied receiving four letters asking him to return a laptop, a mobile phone and company documents, although an email sent under his name on 10 June 2026 acknowledged one of them. He denied writing that email.
The Commissioner called these “bizarre denials” and found the worker lacked credibility. Where his evidence conflicted with other witnesses, the Commissioner generally preferred theirs. He accepted that the worker’s English was adequate but that his grasp of technical legal concepts sometimes appeared limited, which might partly explain his frustration.
On the allegation that the worker was combative in meetings, the Commissioner wrote: “Having myself spent the better part of a day being constantly interrupted by the Applicant during the hearing, I can well imagine meetings with him” descending “into counterproductivity and adversarialism.”
The allegations and the defied direction
Hendrickson relied on a series of grounds. It alleged the worker refused a direction about a subordinate’s place on the company’s corporate social responsibility committee and refused to provide monthly summaries on quality issues in Japan. It also alleged he was combative in meetings and deliberately disrespectful to the company’s Japan country manager. It further alleged he made sexualised comments to a subordinate in November 2025 and February 2026, behaved in a hostile and disruptive way on 14 April 2026, and damaged team relationships.
On 18 March 2026 the worker emailed committee members asking them to “temporarily suspend” his subordinate’s membership until the end of 2026, citing his team’s capacity constraints. He had not spoken to the subordinate first. His own manager told him “he couldn’t do that” and emailed the same day that he was “ok with” the subordinate’s ongoing participation. On 27 March 2026 the worker emailed the subordinate again saying he was suspended.
From February 2026 the worker began addressing the Japan country manager by his first name rather than by the honorific form. At the hearing he described this as “mirroring”. The Commissioner found the worker understood the respectful form of address and dropped it because he believed the colleague had addressed him by his first name. He found the worker did so “in retaliation”.
that the allegations were “entirely fabricated, malicious, disgusting” and that his dismissal was retaliation for a formal complaint he made on 1 April 2026, after his manager told him to “shut up” twice in a meeting on 31 March 2026. He also argued he was denied a proper chance to respond because his request for more time was refused.
that the conduct, taken cumulatively, was serious misconduct under reg 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009, while accepting that a valid reason could be found without that label. It also asked the Commission to weigh the worker’s failure to return company property after his dismissal.
that the employer had a valid reason whether or not the conduct amounted to serious misconduct. The worker had no authority to override his manager on the committee question and “was required to follow” the direction. He found the treatment of the Japanese colleague “immature and improper”. The retaliation claim rested only on timing, and the evidence showed the HR director already had complaints about the worker before 1 April 2026.
“Constant interruption, disrespect, evasiveness and hostility is not conducive to a productive workplace environment.” Commissioner Redford
Sexualised comments found, but not decisive
The Commissioner accepted the subordinate’s evidence that the comments were made, describing it as “straightforward and frank”. He recorded “some disquiet” that the formal complaint was lodged on 15 April 2026, a month and a half after the subordinate first raised it informally, at a time when complaints about the worker were arriving. He found the complaint was not fabricated.
He found the comments were inappropriate, “especially by a superior to his subordinate”, but did not rise to serious misconduct. The company’s problem, he wrote, “was the Applicant’s intractability, not his clumsy and vulgar attempts at camaraderie.”
Procedure and post-dismissal conduct
The worker was suspended on full pay on 17 April 2026 and told of the allegations that day. The HR director’s attempts to meet him in May failed. On 14 May 2026 the worker said he could not attend because he was accompanying his daughter on a school excursion. He later said he was unwell, and a medical certificate covered 18 to 22 May 2026. A letter dated 26 May 2026 asked for a written response by 28 May 2026. The worker asked for 12 more business days and was given until midday on 29 May 2026. He was dismissed that day.
The Commissioner said the period “could have been further extended with little significant prejudice” to the employer, but found the worker was not denied a chance to respond. He found the worker had not returned the company’s property and called this “entirely improper”. He nevertheless excluded it from the fairness assessment, because only circumstances existing when the decision to dismiss was made can be considered.
At a glance
- Parties: A former quality manager v Hendrickson Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
- Citation: [2026] FWC 3929, Commissioner Redford, 16 October 2026
- Section: Fair Work Act 2009, ss.394 and 387
- Outcome: Dismissal not harsh, unjust or unreasonable; application dismissed
- Who it affects: Employers and managers dealing with refusals to follow directions and post-dismissal conduct
In reaching that position on post-dismissal conduct, the Commissioner applied the Full Bench decision in Ridge v Yates [2025] FWCFB 42. He also relied on the worker’s own conduct at the hearing in accepting the accounts of how he behaved at work.
Source: [2026] FWC 3929
General information only. OnNotice reports developments in Australian industrial relations, human resources and workplace law. This article is for education purposes only and is not intended to form professional advice. Always confirm against the primary source and seek specific advice relating to your circumstances.