A former Canberra public servant, dismissed for a sustained campaign of what was deemed malicious and unsubstantiated complaints, has unsuccessfully argued he was unfairly dismissed and "framed" by his department.
Commission upholds dismissal after 'threatening behaviour'
In a decision published in late December 2025, Fair Work Commission deputy president Lyndall Dean found the Commonwealth Department of Health, Disability and Ageing had a valid reason for terminating the man's employment. The commission heard the man had "engaged in threatening behaviour" and psychologically impacted a decision-maker through the seriousness, nature and frequency of his complaints.
Deputy President Dean stated the former employee made "repeated and unsubstantiated complaints about supervisors, which were accompanied by inappropriate and disrespectful communications." The sheer volume of complaints was so significant that between March 2024 and May 2025, the department was forced to dedicate an executive-level employee almost full-time, with support from an APS level six staff member, solely to manage the issues he raised.
A pattern of 'vexatious and malicious' conduct
The man, who began working as a compliance evaluator in 2018, was issued a notice for a suspected breach of the Australian Public Service (APS) code of conduct in 2024. The alleged misconduct spanned the previous two years and involved him lodging a high volume of complaints to people management, followed by further complaints about how those initial grievances were handled.
After being moved to a different team, he made 17 separate complaints about his new manager. His grievances covered workplace culture, "business improvement activities," and alleged breaches of his human rights. He also filed complaints against three other individuals. The department's investigation concluded the numerous complaints were interrelated and the allegations were "unsubstantiated, vexatious and malicious."
During proceedings, the man claimed that as a result of his complaints, he was subjected to bullying, harassment, and mismanagement. He alleged the department "frequently framed him by making false or misleading statements as evidence of his alleged misconduct."
Department argues dismissal was about 'manner' not right to complain
Lawyers for the Commonwealth department countered that the dismissal was not for making complaints, but for the inappropriate manner in which they were made. They argued his conduct involved "inappropriate language, escalation of unfounded allegations, and repeated undermining of colleagues and managers," demonstrating a "refusal to accept outcomes and pattern of personal attack rather than constructive resolution."
It was further alleged that after his dismissal, it was discovered he had accessed confidential and sensitive documents, including information related to conduct investigations of other employees. The Fair Work Commission found his overall conduct had "undermined workplace relationships and operational management."
In her ruling, Deputy President Dean affirmed the right of employees to make complaints but drew a clear line, stating it was not acceptable to engage in what the department characterised as 'persistent complainant conduct'. The case involved more than 6400 pages of supporting documentation filed with the commission, with the former public servant representing himself throughout the process.
