FWC awards nil compensation despite finding dismissal unfair

The Fair Work Commission (Commission) has recently reinforced that serious threats of violence towards colleagues can constitute a valid reason for dismissal, even where an employer fails to follow a procedurally fair disciplinary process.

In Mr Belal Allouche v Skyco Group Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2050, the Commission found that while the employer’s dismissal process was unfair, the employee’s threatening and intimidating behaviour was so serious that reinstatement was inappropriate, and compensation was ultimately reduced to nil.

Key Facts

Mr Allouche was employed as a concreter by Skyco Group Pty Ltd, a small business employer. Following an altercation with a project manager on his first day back from annual leave, Mr Allouche attended the employer’s office after receiving a phone call from the project manager advising that his employment had been terminated.

During the meeting, the Commission accepted that Mr Allouche became aggressive, yelled and swore at management, threatened to “smash” and “kick” the project manager, threatened another coworker, punched a whiteboard causing damage, and remained outside the workplace after leaving the office in the hopes of confronting the coworker when he arrived to site.

The employer subsequently received calls from employees and even employees’ spouses expressing concern about their safety and fear that Mr Allouche would act on his threats. Although the employer initially continued paying Mr Allouche while considering the situation, it ceased making payments approximately one week later, bringing the employment relationship to an end and cancelling all of Mr Allouche’s future scheduled work.

Mr Allouche lodged an unfair dismissal application, arguing that he had not made the alleged threats and that his dismissal was, in part, motivated by his intention to pursue legal action through the Commission and VCAT.

Key Decision

The Commission was required to determine:

• whether the employer complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code;
• whether there was a valid reason for dismissal;
• whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth); and
• whether reinstatement or compensation should be ordered.

Commissioner Tran accepted that the employer had a valid reason for dismissal.

The Commission found that Mr Allouche’s conduct, including his verbal threats, intimidating behaviour and damage to workplace property, created genuine fear amongst management, employees and even family members of coworkers. Commissioner Tran concluded that this conduct was incompatible with maintaining a safe workplace and justified Mr Allouche’s dismissal.

However, despite having a valid reason the employer failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.

Importantly, Skyco Group:

• did not notify Mr Allouche that his employment was at risk because of his conduct;
• did not provide him with an opportunity to respond to the allegations; and
• undertook no meaningful disciplinary process before ending his employment.

As a result, the Commission found the dismissal was unreasonable due to the lack of procedural fairness and harsh, taking into account the employee’s personal circumstances, including that he had recently married and was expecting his first child. Nevertheless, reinstatement was refused because the Commission accepted that the threats of violence had irreparably damaged the employment relationship.

While the Commission considered compensation would ordinarily be appropriate given Skyco Group’s failure to apply procedural fairness to the dismissal process, it ultimately ordered nil compensation. Commissioner Tran found that:

• the employer would likely have reached the same decision had it followed a fair process;
• any procedural process would probably have delayed the dismissal by no more than one week; and
• the employee’s own misconduct significantly contributed to the dismissal.

The Commission also rejected the employee’s claim that he was dismissed for proposing to exercise workplace rights by commencing proceedings in the Commission or VCAT. It found the employer reasonably viewed the employee’s comments as further threats rather than the exercise of a workplace right.

Key Takeaways

This decision is a reminder to employers that:

• having a valid reason for dismissal does not remove employer obligations to follow a fair process; and
• incidents involving threats, intimidation or aggressive behaviour should be taken seriously. Retail environments often involve close interaction between employees, managers and customers, meaning employers have both work health and safety obligations and duties under the Fair Work Act when responding to misconduct.

Where an employee engages in threatening behaviour, employers should:

• investigate the allegations promptly and objectively;
• clearly communicate the allegations to the employee;
• advise the employee that dismissal is being considered;
• provide a genuine opportunity for the employee to respond before making a final decision; and
• carefully document each step of the disciplinary process.

Where there is an immediate risk to workplace safety, employers should consider removing the employee from the workplace, for example by standing the employee down where appropriate, while the investigation is completed.

This case demonstrates that serious threats of violence will often provide a sound basis for dismissal. However, employers who fail to afford procedural fairness still expose themselves to unfair dismissal findings. Although Skyco Group ultimately avoided paying compensation because dismissal was considered inevitable, employers should not assume the same outcome will apply in every case. Following a fair process remains the best protection against unfair dismissal claims.

Learn More

If you would like advice on managing misconduct, workplace behaviour or disciplinary processes, please contact NRA Legal on 1800 572 679 for a confidential conversation.

Mr Belal Allouche v Skyco Group Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2050 (4 June 2026)