QIRC orders Gladstone council worker rehired after unfair sacking

A Qld council worker, sacked after a “brain snap” text message where he called his boss a “rude c***” and warned he would “punch on” has his job back by court order.

A Queensland council worker described sending a text in which he described his boss as a “c***” as a “brain snap”. Picture: Istock

A Gladstone council team leader, sacked in 2023 after a “brain snap” when he sent a heated text message about his boss, has his job back and will be paid for the 15 months he missed.

This is after the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission heard the team leader, aged in his 50s, had been suffering a bout of sciatica and feeling “flat and anxious” about returning to work the next day when he sent two messages to a colleague about his boss.

“Seriously I’m going to punch on with (boss),” followed by, “He is a rude c**t!”.

However, Gladstone Regional Council is currently appealing the decision in the Industrial Court of Queensland.

His colleague, concerned about the well-being of the team leader, had decided to show the message to the boss, who was the subject of the message.

The team leader, who had an unblemished six-year work record with the council, was called to a meeting with his boss, a manager and human resource officer the next day when a number of allegations were put to him, and he was placed on special paid leave.

An investigation followed which resulted in the termination of his employment in mid 2023, about seven weeks after the incident.

Industrial Commissioner Roslyn McLennan found, after a two-day hearing in November 2024, that his termination by Gladstone Regional Council was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

In her findings she said he was not given 24 hours’ notice of the initial meeting, informed of his right to have a union representative (or other representative) present, nor was he provided with detail of what the meeting was about and why his attendance was required.

Her report included his work history at Gladstone Regional Council, beginning as a labourer in January 2017 before promotion to team leader soon after, working diligently for the council as evidenced by his clean work record. He was never performance managed.

“However, restructures involved changes at council which created something of a ‘pressure cooker’ environment,” she said.

“There was a disconnect between the ‘role defined’ and what was happening ‘on the ground’.”

She said his evidence was that he was being left to “fend for himself”, while being responsible for a team of about 15 employees.

“Issues of workload, work intensity and work pressure were deeply felt by (team leader), as is evidenced by him raising the matters contemporaneously with his union organiser, and as supported by his colleague team leader (with whom he shared the same workspace),” she said.

Against that backdrop, there was a buildup of pressure and frustration.

“Some irritations were blown up into matters of some enormity in the mind of (the team leader),” Ms McLennan said.

“Things such as failing to reply to email inquiries or including several others in a response to the (team leader’s) email inquiry took on a significance that was not perhaps deserved.”

This all culminated in his “brain snap” decision to send the inappropriate text message.

Ms McLennan said the evidence from the following disciplinary meetings show a written warning in all the circumstances of the case was the correct course and one the team leader would have accepted.

“He had apologised, expressed remorse and undertaken not to repeat the behaviour,” Ms Mclennan said.

(He went further) to emphasise that he never had an intention to commit a violent act against his supervisor.

“..... it was a vent. It is also clear that (he) never intended for anyone other than (his colleague) to see the text.”

She found the procedural failings of the team leader not being provided with prior notice of the meeting or its purpose, coupled with no opportunity to arrange for a support person in advance of said meeting, was more than a “mere blemish”.

“While it was appropriate to take the decision to suspend him until council could investigate the matter of the texts, the way it went about it was procedurally unfair,” she said.

She also found that the reason that the colleague had brought the text to the council’s senior staff’s attention in the first place was because he had wanted the council to provide help and support to the team leader.

In her view, the council had neglected its duty to the team leader and his colleague.

She said from the start of the process, the evidence was that he had raised the text because he was concerned about the team leader’s welfare.

“The tears he had in his eyes (while giving evidence) were because he was taking the action he did to try and get help for his colleague,” she said.

“Unfortunately, things took a different turn.”

She found the dismissal unreasonable because it was a disproportionate response to his unblemished employment record.

“He was under pressure at the time, and the text messages were out of character,” she said.

“The applicant had worked successfully for a lengthy period at council despite the challenges he faced. Following the incident, he showed remorse, expressed willingness and commitment to improving, and the conduct was uncharacteristic.”

She ordered a number of actions including that he be reinstated to his former position on conditions at least as favourable as the conditions on which he was employed immediately before dismissal.

His continuity of employment will be maintained between the date of dismissal and date of reinstatement.

Council will also pay remuneration lost because of the dismissal in the relevant period.

The Services Union Secretary Neil Henderson said the commission had made its decision and the council had a right to appeal, but it was unfortunate for the worker it was a long process.

“We are very happy to support our member,” Mr Henderson said.

A Gladstone Regional Council spokesperson said, “the decision has been appealed by Gladstone Regional Council to the Industrial Court of Queensland and no further comment can be provided at this stage”.

Originally published as QIRC orders Gladstone council worker rehired after unfair sacking