A software developer who went all-in on his workplace grudge by sending a barrage of AI-generated emails to managers has lost his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. After a minor Microsoft Teams chat dispute with a colleague, the developer made an unjustified bullying complaint. He then sent at least 17 “rambling” AI-generated emails to management, accusing them of sexual harassment and Fair Work violations. The Fair Work Commission found the developer had become “ungovernable” and ruled his termination of employment was justified.
This unfair dismissal NSW case – Marcus Wibmer v Fujifilm Data Management Solutions Pty Ltd [2026] – is an example of why it’s a bad idea to act on a workplace grudge. Let’s look at the conduct that got the developer dismissed and why Fair Work terminated his claim.
Sydney-based Marcus Wibmer began working for Fujifilm Data Management Solutions as a senior developer in October 2013. He had an unblemished record at the company. The incident that led to him forming his workplace grudge, and that ultimately led to his termination of employment, took place on 30 May 2025. During a Microsoft Teams chat, a colleague commented that the 64-year-old Mr. Wibmer’s work had “caused more pain than gain.” Mr. Wibmer replied with the message “far q” — which he later claimed was a typo for “far out.” His colleague then asked if he had an “anger management issue.” To this, Mr. Wibmer responded by saying that he considered his colleague’s “diagnosis” of anger management as an “offensive bullying incident.”
On 4 June 2025, Mr. Wibmer lodged a formal bullying complaint with his supervisor. At a resolution meeting a few days later, his colleague apologised to him. However, Mr. Wibmer refused to accept it, instead opting to hold a workplace grudge. During his Fair Work unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission stated that if he had accepted the apology, “the events that followed would not have occurred.”
Instead of accepting the apology, Mr. Wibmer used the meeting to step up his workplace grudge. He raised a separate 2019 incident in which he alleged a different colleague had attempted to strike him. On 8 July 2025, Mr. Wibmer attended a formal meeting with two HR reps. He requested permission to record the meeting, which was denied. The HR reps handed him a letter confirming that Fujifilm had investigated the 2019 incident. It also noted that the colleague had apologised for that incident and that Mr. Wibmer had accepted that apology. Therefore, HR said that the bullying complaint was a closed matter.
During the same meeting, Mr. Wibmer was told that Fujifilm’s managing director had spotted him wearing a singlet in the office and that he needed to put a shirt on. He later alleged in writing that one of the HR reps said to him: “How would you feel if I took my top off.” Mr. Wibmer described this in emails as “deeply inappropriate, shocking, and disgustingly unprofessional.” He then filed a formal sexual harassment complaint against her.
During Fair Work unfair dismissal claim proceedings, a colleague testified that the HR rep had actually said “I am feeling warm too, but I’m not taking my shirt off.” The Fair Work Commission preferred this account. It noted that Mr. Wibmer had a tendency to divert attention from his own behaviour by “raising allegations against others.”
Within hours of leaving the 8 July meeting with the two HR reps, Mr. Wibmer kicked off his campaign of inundating Fujifilm management with emails. Over three days, he sent at least 17 emails to various managers, many of them lengthy. He later admitted drafting them with AI. Colleagues observed him consulting what appeared to be ChatGPT on his phone during meetings, which he did not deny. Mr. Wibmer’s emails cited sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.
One email, sent to a HR rep had the subject line “Interrogatory & Discovery Questions to HR — FUJIFILM DMS.” It contained 24 questions demanding written responses on topics ranging from the 2019 incident to the dress code and “procedural integrity.” Another email accused the HR rep of a “persistent lingering gaze” that Mr. Wibmer described as “creepy.” A further email accused his supervisor of “witness tampering.” When the head of HR wrote to Mr. Wibmer asking him to return to his normal duties while matters were being reviewed, he accused her in writing of committing “adverse action” that potentially constitutes a breach of the Fair Work Act 2009.
In an email sent on 10 July 2025, Mr. Wibmer directly accused Fujifilm’s managing director of telling him to disengage from “whistleblowing activities.” He claimed that the managing director had deleted the email. Mr. Wibmer told the managing director that he had saved a screenshot proving the email had been retracted. He even named a specific file: “20250710 — Email retracted Keith.jpeg.”
Fujifilm searched its email servers, finding that no such email existed. Then, at a subsequent disciplinary meeting on 25 July 2025, Mr. Wibmer was asked to produce the screenshot. He admitted it did not exist. During Fair Work unfair dismissal claim proceedings, the managing director gave evidence that he had never sent the email.
On 11 July 2025, Mr. Wibmer emailed his supervisor saying that he had “broken down in tears twice today” and needed to go home. Before leaving, he submitted his timesheet for the week, recording 15 hours under “Meetings concerning workplace Violence and Bullying Matters.” In reality, he had attended just one required one-hour HR meeting that week. That evening, Fujifilm suspended Mr. Wibmer on full pay pending a review.
On 21 July 2025, the head of HR wrote to Mr. Wibmer rejecting each of his complaints. This included his bullying allegation, sexual harassment claim, dress code grievances and the demand to reopen the 2019 matter. He also raised two formal misconduct allegations related to Mr. Wibmer falsifying his timesheet and dishonestly fabricating the managing director’s email. Mr. Wibmer responded with more emails, claiming whistleblower protections under the Corporations Act 2001. He then escalated his complaints to Fujifilm’s parent company in Japan.
Mr. Wibmer attended a meeting on 25 July 2025 with Fujifilm’s head of HR and HR manager Amir Qajar. Mr. Wibmer began by asking Mr. Qajar about his ethnic background. When Mr. Qajar said this was not relevant, Mr. Wibmer mentioned he had an Iranian flatmate. During the meeting, Mr. Wibmer was observed consulting ChatGPT on his phone. He made dismissive hand gestures at the head of HR while she was speaking and was described as argumentative throughout.
A show cause letter followed on 30 July 2025. Mr. Wibmer’s responses failed to address the substance of the allegations and instead renewed demands for documents. He also questioned the legal literacy of managers and characterised the entire process as “a self-reinforcing apparatus of retaliation.” On 7 August 2025, Fujifilm terminated Mr Wibmer for breaching the company’s workplace conduct policy. As a gesture of goodwill, Fujifilm paid him five weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.
Mr. Wibmer lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, representing himself with the assistance of AI. He did not seek reinstatement and instead sought compensation, citing forced early retirement and reputational damage. His arguments to the Fair Work Commission included:
In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Fujifilm submitted that Mr. Wibmer was “ungovernable.” It said he had refused to accept the outcome of every single investigation. He had also made baseless allegations against managers, failed to engage constructively during the process and behaved disrespectfully. The company argued his complaints were personal workplace grievances, not protected disclosures. It said that constructive dialogue with him had become impossible.
Mr. Wibmer’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in March 2026. It ruled that his termination of employment was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The Commission criticised Mr. Wibmer’s use of AI to prepare his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. It said that he “was not wise” to do so, describing his written submissions as “discursive and difficult to follow.” Mr. Wibmer’s unjustified termination claim was thrown out based on the following findings:
Within the context of workplace dismissals, procedural fairness refers to the process an employer must follow before terminating an employee’s employment. This means giving the employee clear notice of the allegations against them and providing them the opportunity to respond. It also requires the person making the decision to do so impartially and without a predetermined outcome.
In Marcus Wibmer v Fujifilm Data Management Solutions Pty Ltd [2026], the Fair Work Commission identified one procedural gap in Fujifilm’s process. Mr. Wibmer had been fired for sending a barrage of AI-generated emails to management. However, the company never explicitly warned Mr Wibmer that the volume and tone of his emails could itself become the basis for his dismissal. In the end, the Commission ruled that this procedural shortcoming was outweighed by the seriousness of his misconduct.
A show cause letter is a formal written notice from an employer advising an employee that the company is considering termination of employment. It asks them to explain (or “show cause”) why that should not happen. Receiving a show cause letter does not automatically mean you will be terminated. It is an opportunity to provide your side of the story and offer context or mitigating circumstances.
In Marcus Wibmer v Fujifilm Data Management Solutions Pty Ltd [2026], Mr Wibmer received a show cause letter. Rather than responding directly and substantively to the allegations, he sent further lengthy emails demanding documents and questioning the legal competence of HR. The Fair Work Commission found that he had failed to engage with the show cause process in any meaningful way. His non-response to the substance of the allegations was itself cited as a reason his dismissal was justified.
Read more: Worker’s ‘Hopeless’ ChatGPT Advice Tanks General Protections Claim
If you believe your termination of employment was unfair, the clock is already running. Fair Work unfair dismissal claims must be lodged within 21 days of your termination taking effect.
At Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives, we assist employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, forced resignation, general protections claims, workplace bullying and sexual disputes. Wherever you are in the country, we can help you understand your rights and put your best case forward.
Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential initial consultation.
