Sales rep ‘unfairly sacked’ for working from home

A high-performing sales representative has been compensated $26,000 after he was sacked for working from home on company mandated office days.

Fair Work Commissioner Donna McKenna ruled the sacking of a Sydney worker was ‘bereft of procedural fairness’.

A high-performing Sydney sales representative has been compensated $26,000 after he was sacked for working from home on company mandated office days.

The Fair Work Commission found e-commerce firm Insider AU unfairly dismissed Tom Moro after ruling his decision to work from home instead of going to the office twice a week was not a valid reason for sacking him.

The company subsequently ­argued Mr Moro was sacked due to his poor work performance but the commission rejected the claims, finding he was a high-achieving employee who had won awards for high performance and secured more than $23,000 in ­bonuses in the first half of 2023. His annual base salary was $68,400 plus superannuation.

Management instituted mandatory in-office attendance days on Monday and Wednesdays but Mr Moro made it “plain and simple” he did not want to work at the office.

On August 30 last year, Mr Moro updated the work calendar to tell colleagues he was working from home but did not communicate his intention by the more usual means of WhatsApp.

The company’s regional director Tunc Bolluk messaged Mr Moro to ask where he was, and he replied that he was working from home as a tradesperson was at his property fixing his dishwasher.

Mr Bolluk replied: “Sorry Tom, I’m calling BS on this. This is not good enough – you are supposed to give us a heads up WAY in advance as opposed to having me chase you like this.”

Mr Moro said Mr Bolluk telephoned him the following day and said “you clearly don’t want to come into the office – it is best to part ways”.

He told Mr Moro his employment would end a day later.

Commissioner Donna McKenna found Mr Bolluk did not issue Mr Moro with a warning or give any reason for seeking his resignation other than him not coming into the office and working from home on August 30.

“I am not satisfied that the applicant’s conduct in not attending the office and, instead, working from home on 30 August 2023 constituted a valid reason for dismissal,” she said.

“This is so even considering that it is a matter of common ground that in-office attendance days had been broached by Mr Bolluk in January or February 2023 over coffee with the applicant as part of a broader, informal work-related conversation.”

Leading up to the dismissal, Mr Moro said he was intending to resign to travel but swiftly withdrew the resignation. Commissioner McKenna said the move probably, from the company’s perspective “cast a pall over the relationship as to what might have been considered (his) longer term commitment to the business”.

“I also consider that the irritant of the applicant’s unilateral advice that he would again be working from home on 30 August 2023, being an in-office day, was the trigger for the dismissal.”

Given there was no valid reason for the dismissal and it was “bereft of procedural fairness”, she was satisfied the sacking was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.