Working two jobs at the same time can see you fairly dismissed for serious misconduct, a recent Fair Work Commission decision has confirmed. The worker had been fired after her employer discovered that she was listed as a “director” on another business’s website. The worker said that her husband had created the profile on the site, but her lies unravelled at her Fair Work unfair dismissal hearing.
In this article, we’ll look at the events of this unfair dismissal VIC case: Taylah Chislett v iProperty Express Pty Ltd [2025]. We’ll also look at another recent case of a plumber accused of starting his own business that would compete with his employer. However, he ended up winning an over $11,000 unfair dismissal payout.
Taylah Chislett started working for tech firm iProperty Express as a software training assistant in June 2024. As part of her role, Ms. Chislett had access to confidential data about clients and their contact details. She also had access to sensitive information about the company’s products and product development plans as well as its sales and marketing strategies.
Ms. Chislett’s employment contract stated that she could not be employed elsewhere while she was working at iProperty Express. She was also obligated not to share any confidential company data. Breaching these conditions could see her summarily sacked for serious misconduct. In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Chislett alleged that by early 2025 she began to experience “concerning” conduct that made her question whether she wanted to continue in the role. She said that she had been required to work significant unpaid overtime.
Ms. Chislett also objected to iProperty Express not reimbursing her for expenses incurred on work trips. She also had issues with the way managers had spoken to her relating to work she had completed. Stating that she “did not appreciate” working for someone who “saw no value in her”, she submitted her resignation on 14 April 2025. This was intended to take effect on 4 July 2025.
Some two weeks into her notice period, a colleague discovered a professional profile for Ms. Chislett on the website of Global Property, a competitor to many of iProperty Express’ clients. The profile listed her as a director and included her photograph and mobile number. The website also had a profile for Ms. Chislett’s husband, also listed as a director at Global Property. iProperty Express was concerned that Global Property would be interested in its confidential data. Also, that many of iProperty Express’ clients would recognise Ms. Chislett on the site, as her role with the company was face to face with clients.
That evening, the director of iProperty Express emailed Ms. Chislett notifying her that he had discovered these details. He said that given the “seriousness” of the accusation, her access to company systems had been suspended. In a meeting in early May 2025, Ms. Chislett claimed she “could not recall” when she became aware of the profile. She suggested it was created by her husband for “security” reasons without her permission. Ms. Chislett denied having a contract or performing work for Global Property..
A few days later, after being removed from work chat groups, Ms. Chislett emailed the director saying that her profile existed “at the behest of my husband.” She offered a “harmonious cessation” of employment in exchange for 12 weeks of pay in lieu of notice. iProperty Express’ then searched realestate.com and found that Ms. Chislett was listed as a secondary agent for three properties sold in April 2025. Evidence also surfaced that in February 2025, Ms. Chislett had sent an email from her work account to her personal address. This email contained an excel spreadsheet of potential clients attending an industry conference.
iProperty Express subsequently issued Ms. Chislett a formal show cause letter. It noted that her profile photo had been modified in February 2025 and that her conduct was a serious breach of her employment contract. During the show cause meeting, Ms. Chislett claimed she did not have access to the mobile phone number listed on the competitor’s profile. However, an immediate internal check by the employer confirmed she had previously used that same number to message iProperty Express staff.
On 12 May 2025, iProperty Express decided that Ms. Chislett would face immediate termination of employment. The company cited a total loss of trust and serious misconduct.
Ms. Chislett subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, arguing that her termination of employment for serious misconduct was harsh and procedurally unfair. She contended that her suspension from company systems denied her an opportunity to respond to the allegations. She further submitted that the “punishment does not fit the crime” because her conduct did not meet the threshold of serious misconduct. Ms. Chislett told the Fair Work Commission that her termination of employment had impacted her health and finances. She, however, did not provide any evidence of this hardship.
Meanwhile, iProperty Express argued to the Commission that Ms. Chislett had breached two clauses in her employment contract. These barred any involvement in industry-related projects without consent and sharing of confidential information. The employer’s primary argument rested on Ms. Chislett’s repeated dishonesty during the investigation. It alleged that she had lied about not being able to recall when she became aware of the Global Property profile. iProperty Express also alleged that she had lied about her husband creating it.
The employer argued that this “dissembling and dishonest conduct” fundamentally breached the trust necessary for the employment relationship to continue.
Ms. Chislett’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in November 2025. During the hearing, a Global Property representative testified that she had worked for the company on a casual basis. She had made an oral agreement with the company. Although her husband claimed the profile was for “safety” because she accompanied him to open houses, the Commission found this justification unconvincing. It found the real purpose was to increase their “reputations and brand awareness” for a future business.
During cross-examination, Ms. Chislett eventually conceded that she had acted as an open house “host” and had driven her husband to inspections because he had lost his driver’s licence. The Commission found that the “director” title used on the profile was misleading and potentially fraudulent as Ms. Chislett admitted she held no such role. It also determined that the email containing the client spreadsheet sent in February 2025 was sent without authority and constituted a breach of confidentiality.
Based on all this, the Commission ruled that Ms. Chislett had committed serious misconduct that warranted immediate termination of employment.
Regarding procedural fairness, the Fair Work Commission was “comfortably satisfied” that iProperty Express followed a correct process. It said the company had issued a show cause letter and had provided multiple opportunities for Ms. Chislett to respond. Given all these findings, the Commission concluded that the sacking for serious misconduct was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The ruling noted that Ms. Chislett had already secured new employment by August 2025 with higher pay than her role at iProperty Express. This further diminished her claim of financial hardship.
Another recent Fair Work unfair dismissal case that involved a worker terminated for having a second job is Mr. Gabriel Walker v Plumbtrax Pty Ltd [2025]. Melbourne-based Gabriel Walker started working as a plumber for Plumbtrax in September 2021. For more than three years, he faced no disciplinary issues or performance concerns.
The circumstances leading to his termination of employment for serious misconduct began to shift in late 2024. That’s when discussions took place regarding Mr. Walker’s future with the company. He expressed the desire to leave the company in the first quarter of 2025.
Around this time, Mr. Walker registered a business named Walker Environmental Services Pty Ltd and began preparatory steps for his eventual resignation. Plumbtrax soon found out about this. It discovered an Instagram account featuring plumbing services and received reports from suppliers that Mr. Walker had contacted them.
On 17 December 2024, Mr. Walker was requested to attend a meeting with a Plumbtrax manager at the company headquarters. Mr. Walker attended the meeting alone, where he was immediately presented with a pre-prepared termination letter. The letter stated that he would face termination of employment for serious misconduct. The sacking was summary, meaning it took effect immediately without notice or payment in lieu of notice.
Mr. Walker lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim arguing that Plumbtrax did not have a valid reason for termination of employment. He contended that the Instagram account was a “trial” and not a live tool for soliciting clients. He further asserted that he had not yet begun operating the business. He also claimed that a professional website for the entity was not even live at the time of his serious misconduct termination. Mr. Walker claimed the termination process was procedurally unfair. He claimed that the decision had been made before his meeting with management, leaving him no genuine opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Meanwhile, Plumbtrax lodged a jurisdictional objection to Mr. Walker’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. This was made on the basis that his serious misconduct termination was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. It argued that the termination of employment met the Code’s criteria as the company believed that Mr. Walker’s conduct was sufficiently serious to justify an immediate sacking. Specifically, because he had been conducting a business in direct competition and opposition to Plumbtrax.
This conduct was described as a breach of his contract of employment, specifically clauses relating to confidential information, non-solicitation and intellectual property. The company alleged Mr. Walker had used Plumbtrax resources, such as images of equipment and CCTV footage, to promote his new venture.
Mr. Walker’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in April 2025. It acknowledged that Plumbtrax had a genuine belief that serious misconduct had occurred. However, it ruled that this belief was not based on reasonable grounds. The Commission noted that in order to hold a belief on reasonable grounds the employer must have a discussion with the employee. They must discuss the perceived serious misconduct and hear the perspective of the employee. In this instance, because the termination of employment letter was drafted before the meeting, no such discussion took place.
Based on this, the Commission rejected Plumbtrax’s jurisdictional objection, finding that the termination of employment did not comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
The Fair Work Commission found no evidence that Mr. Walker was actually operating his business or soliciting Plumbtrax’s clients during his employment. While he had taken preparatory steps, the Commission noted that such actions were consistent with his stated intent to leave the company in early 2025. The Commission stated that the reason for the dismissal was not sound, defensible or well founded. Furthermore, the Commission rejected the argument that Mr. Walker had breached confidentiality or intellectual property clauses. It noted that photos of common plumbing equipment did not meet the definition of confidential material.
Regarding procedural fairness, the Fair Work Commission found that Mr. Walker was not notified of the reason for his termination of employment before the decision was made. This lack of notification meant he had no opportunity to influence the outcome. The decision highlighted that while Mr. Walker’s social media “trial” was not “a particularly sensible decision”, it did not justify summary dismissal for serious misconduct. The Commission concluded that the sacking was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable.
The Commission found that reinstatement was inappropriate given the loss of trust between the parties. It therefore ordered Plumbtrax to pay Mr. Walker $11,726.14 plus superannuation in compensation.
Read more: Court Finds Accidental Confidentiality Breach was Still Misconduct
Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives provides specialist workplace mediation for employees who need clear advice and strong representation. With more than 20 years’ experience, we assist workers across Australia with sexual harassment matters, discrimination claims, unfair dismissal and general protections disputes.
If your workplace rights have been compromised, AWDR is here to help you respond with confidence. Call us today on 1800 333 666 for a free and private consultation.
