Unionist loses unfair dismissal appeal for fat-shaming boss

A union delegate sacked for ‘fat-shaming’ her boss has lost her unfair dismissal claim.

Commission deputy president Richard Clancy upheld the sacking, finding the comments about “extra padding” were part of a pattern of increasingly belligerent and disruptive behaviour by Ms Bastoni.

A union delegate sacked by a market research company for “fat-shaming” her boss has lost her unfair dismissal claim, after the Fair Work Commission found her comments about her supervisor’s “extra padding” to be cruel and demeaning.

ORC International market ­research interviewer Julia Bastoni wanted the heating turned on in the company’s Melbourne office on May 26 last year.

When her supervisor said she did not feel the cold, Ms Bastoni replied that was because she had “extra padding”. She later referred to her supervisor’s “natural extra padding”, claiming it was a “scientific fact that people with more body fat do not feel the cold as much as skinnier people”.

The supervisor later complained she felt anxious, upset and ­humiliated by the comments by Ms Bastoni, a National Union of Workers delegate.

ORC International sacked Ms Bastoni, who was on two warnings, for the comments as well as an earlier Facebook message she sent the supervisor criticising her for sending her home for breaching company policy prohibiting mobile phone use at work.

Commission deputy president Richard Clancy upheld the sacking, finding the comments about “extra padding” were part of a pattern of increasingly belligerent and disruptive behaviour by Ms Bastoni. “I regard Ms Bastoni’s behaviour as being completely disrespectable and unacceptable,” he said. “I am satisfied her dismissal was not a disproportionate outcome in response to cruel, insulting and demeaning comments.”

Ms Bastoni told the commission that as the union delegate she had made the request to turn on the heating on behalf of staff who were feeling cold.

“There seems to be some basic science to the effect that skinny people experience the cold more than overweight people,’’ she said.

“It might seem indelicate to point out that the reason why (the supervisor) did not feel the cold that the other staff did could be a basic biological factor, such as ­insulating fat layers. However it is nevertheless probably a correct explanation that was put to (the supervisor) to explain why she should provide relief to the staff who were feeling the cold.”

She said her language about layers was “euphemistic instead of demeaning” and it was only the company’s lawyer who tried to characterise her comments as “fat-shaming”. She said “obviously the point was taken and the heat was tuned on”, resulting in her achieving a “result for the greater good of her colleagues — a warmer work environment on a cold Melbourne morning”.

Mr Clancy said Ms Bastoni’s arguments were “neither impressive nor persuasive”.

“It seems the case put on her behalf is that provided one bases an insult on scientific/biological factors, it is justified. I do not ­accept this,’’ he said.

“Further, to suggest Ms Bastoni’s comments are justifiable on some sort of a utilitarian basis and the issue here was the complainant’s lack of insight into the state or condition of her body beggars belief.’’