Commission confirms private WhatsApp messages can justify disciplinary action
A recent Fair Work Commission (Commission) decision is a timely reminder for employers that the fact an employee’s conduct occurs on a private messaging platform does not necessarily place it beyond the reach of workplace disciplinary action.
In Tyler Monaghan v Endacom Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 3507, the Commission found that highly offensive WhatsApp messages about a manager, together with messages encouraging colleagues to resign, had sufficient nexus to the workplace to justify disciplinary action and could provide a valid reason for dismissal.
Key facts
The employee was engaged as a Project Engineer with Endacom Pty Ltd (Endacom) on the Snowy Hydro 2.0 Project from June 2022 until November 2025. On 29 October 2025, while not at work, he sent a series of messages to a WhatsApp group comprising of nine Endacom engineers. The messages included highly insulting comments about his direct manager and encouraged colleagues to resign from the business.
Later that day, a superintendent allegedly observed the messages displayed on another team member’s workplace computer and forwarded a picture to management. The employee was unaware that management had seen the messages. On that same day, he submitted his resignation, providing eight weeks’ notice.
Five days later, Endacom summarily dismissed him for serious misconduct before the expiration of his notice period. The employee subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).
Key findings
When does private online conduct become workplace misconduct?
The case raised an increasingly common workplace question: when can an employee’s conduct on private messaging platforms be sufficiently connected to employment to justify disciplinary action? Commissioner Crawford was required to assess whether the WhatsApp messages constituted misconduct connected to the workplace and, if so, whether Endacom followed a fair dismissal process.
A significant aspect of the judgment concerned the connection between the employee’s conduct and his employment. Although the messages were sent outside working hours and from a private WhatsApp group, all participants were Endacom employees, and some participants were at work when the messages were sent. The group chat was also used to discuss both work and personal matters. Ultimately, Commissioner Crawford found that these factors created a sufficient connection between the conduct and the workplace.
Importantly, the Commissioner rejected arguments that the conduct was purely private in nature; even though the messages were sent during personal time, the workplace nexus was sufficiently strong to justify disciplinary action.
Was there a valid reason for dismissal?
On the evidence, Commissioner Crawford concluded that Endacom had a valid reason to terminate the employee’s employment. The Commission found that the insulting messages about his manager constituted a serious breach of the employee’s obligations, while the messages encouraging colleagues to resign breached an express contractual obligation. Accordingly, the Commission accepted that Endacom had a valid reason to dismiss the employee, in line with section 385 of the FW Act.
Was a procedurally fair process followed?
Despite having a valid reason, the Commission found that the dismissal was unfair, as Endacom denied the employee procedural fairness. The employee was never informed that management had discovered the WhatsApp messages. He was also not invited to a disciplinary meeting, provided with the allegations, nor given an opportunity to explain his conduct before the decision to dismiss him was finalised. The Commissioner noted at paragraph [30] of the decision that it was clearly common for strong language to be used among the workers. However, while the existence of a valid reason for employee’s dismissal weighed strongly in favour of finding he was not unfairly dismissed, Commissioner Crawford considered that this was outweighed by other relevant matters and procedural fairness deficiencies.
What was the outcome?
After weighing the factors in section 387 of the FW Act, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Reinstatement was not considered an appropriate remedy, as the employee had already resigned and intended to leave the business.
Instead, the Commissioner assessed the employee’s lost earnings during the balance of his notice period at approximately $27,400. As the employee’s misconduct materially contributed to the dismissal, the compensation was reduced by 50%; Endacom was ordered to pay $13,701.92 plus superannuation.
Key takeaways
This decision reinforces that employers may be entitled to take disciplinary action in relation to conduct occurring outside of work, where there is a sufficient connection to the workplace. However, even serious misconduct will not necessarily protect an employer from an unfair dismissal finding if procedural fairness requirements are not followed.
How can NRA Legal assist?
NRA Legal can assist with workplace investigations, provide practical written advice, and represent employers in the Fair Work Commission proceedings.
If you require further guidance on navigating disciplinary matters or out-of-work conduct, please contact NRA Legal for a confidential conversation on 1800 572 679.
Contact our team today