Two Brisbane hospitality workers dismissed for arranging a display of rubber ducks engaging in a Satanic ritual on their manager’s desk have won big at the Fair Work Commission. The manager took particular issue with the Satanic pentagram drawn alongside the ducks, complaining that it was a “symbol evoking the devil.” She also claimed that such Satanic ritualistic displays “terrified” her. However, a month after the terminations, the manager got a Satanic pentagram tattoo; an act the Commission noted was “incongruent” with her complaint.
In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal QLD case Serena Donato & Emma Donato v Queensland Venue Co Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we explore another Fair Work case involving a postal worker’s sex shop prank that ended with a valid termination of employment.
Emma Donato began working for Queensland Venue Co as a duty manager in November 2023. The company operates pubs across Australia. In June 2025, Ms. Donato was assigned to work at the Cleveland Sands Hotel in Brisbane. Her spouse, Serena Donato, started at Queensland Venue Co as a food and beverage supervisor in November 2023. She specifically worked at Brisbane’s Mansfield Tavern Hotel.
The events leading to their termination of employment began in late June 2025, when Emma Donato started placing small rubber ducks in various staff areas. She described this as a “light-hearted, silly gesture” intended to “lift morale” during what she described as a stressful period. Emma noted that the ducks were placed in various locations, including the head chef’s office, as a “playful attempt” to improve the workplace culture for the “whole team.”
The key incident that led to the Donatos’ termination of employment concerned the Cleveland Sands Hotel’s venue manager, referred to in Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings as the Complainant. In the lead up to the incident, she had complained to Queensland Venue Co that staff at the venue had been “dismissive” of her reasonable management instructions. She also claimed they had been “openly insubordinate,” exhibiting behaviour that included eye-rolling, mocking and snickering at her. The Complainant also said staff had been resistant to her lawful and reasonable directions.
On the evening of 3 July 2025, the situation escalated when Emma Donato, alongside another employee, arranged a display on the desk of the Complainant. This included several rubber ducks and a hand-drawn pentagram. Emma described the display to the Fair Work Commission as “ducks engaged in a summoning ritual to summon more ducks” and that she intended to bring a larger duck the next day as the “product” of the spell. The Complainant discovered the display the next day, before lodging a formal complaint with management.
In her complaint, the Complainant wrote, “No matter if it seems funny with the duckies, it is a symbol evoking the devil.” She noted that she had past experiences that “terrify me of these ritualistic actions.” Queensland Venue Co subsequently launched an investigation into the incident. During the investigation, the Complainant told the company that she did not know what kind of joke display she would see next. “Was it going to be a rubber duck hanging on a noose?,” she asked her employer.
Queensland Venue Co reviewed CCTV footage and identified Emma Donato as responsible for the prank. Simultaneously, Serena Donato became aware of an investigation and inquired about it in an Instagram group chat consisting of around 30 current and former employees. Queensland Venue Co alleged that her participation in this chat, which included comments such as “who knows what about the aftermath of the ducks LMFAAAOOOO,” amounted to mocking the Complainant. The company also suggested Serena Donato had attempted to hide the involvement and identity of her wife. Both women were issued letters of allegation. Following separate meetings on 9 July 2025, they were both sacked effective immediately, leading to a joint Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
In their Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Emma Donato and Serena Donato argued that Queensland Venue Co’s theory of a malicious motive was unfounded. Emma Donato told the Commission that the rubber duck prank was not meant to “reference offensive symbolism.” She simply brushed it off as a “harmless prank.” Emma argued that her termination of employment was unreasonable and disproportionate and noted that she had a spotless record at the company.
Serena Donato contended that her messages in the private group chat did not constitute workplace bullying, as she was unaware of the Complainant’s distress at the time. She described the disciplinary meeting as “uncomfortable,” alleging that a manager made inappropriate comments about her age. Serena claimed that he had said, “You’re a ‘92 baby…You’re too old to be, you know, in these group chats.” Serena also argued that the decision was a “predetermined outcome” and that Queensland Venue Co had failed to consider mitigating circumstances.
In response to the Donatos’ Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Queensland Venue Co argued that it had a valid reason for termination of employment based on serious misconduct and workplace bullying. The company contended that Emma Donato’s actions created a hostile work environment and that the pentagram was a “grossly offensive symbol.” They further alleged that Serena Donato had a history of “strained” relations with the Complainant and that the prank was a targeted act of malice.
Queensland Venue Co noted that it had a legal obligation to ensure a safe workplace and therefore could not retain staff who engaged in “repeated unreasonable conduct.” The company argued that the duo’s conduct was “too severe” to resolve via mediation or conciliation.
The duo’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in February 2026. It took the side of the Donatos, saying that Queensland Venue Co’s case relied heavily on “vague assertions” regarding a supposed conflict with the Complainant. Regarding Emma Donato, the Commission said that the company did not prove that she had engaged in bullying as defined under the Fair Work Act 2009. This was because the rubber duck prank was not proven to be malicious.
The Commission accepted Emma Donato’s evidence that she was placing ducks around the workplace to boost morale. It was also noted that the head chef had found a duck in his in-tray, supporting the claim that the Complainant was not the sole target. Regarding Serena Donato, the Commission concluded that her Instagram comments did not amount to mockery. It found it likely that she “genuinely did not understand” the fact that the Complainant was distressed when she made her comments.
The Fair Work Commission also criticised Queensland Venue Co for the “perfunctory” nature of the disciplinary meetings, which failed to examine the relationships in detail. It also noted that on 11 August 2025, the Complainant had obtained a tattoo of the same pentagram shape. It said that this seemed “somewhat incongruent with the level of impact” she claimed the incident had on her.
Ultimately, the Commission found that both ladies’ termination of employment was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. It ordered Queensland Venue Co to pay Emma Donato $8,405.76. Meanwhile, Serena Donato was awarded $7,050.00. Both amounts included an additional 12% superannuation contribution. The Commission declined to reduce the amounts for misconduct, stating it was not satisfied their conduct warranted such a deduction.
Another example of jokes in the workplace ending in termination of employment is the unfair dismissal SA case Rebecca Possingham v Australian Postal Corporation [2024]. Rebecca Possingham started working as a postal delivery officer for the Australian Postal Corporation (i.e. Australia Post) in January 2017. She was based at the Modbury North Delivery Centre in Adelaide and worked alongside other postal workers that included Alisha Jury and Sue Tregeagle.
The events that led to the termination of employment began around 21 March 2024. During a morning “smoko” break at approximately 7:30am, the three women discussed a junior colleague, Carah Broersma, who had only been at Australia Post for five months. The group was aware that Ms Broersma felt uncomfortable regarding Round 9, which included a shop called Sexyland. Ms. Possingham knew that the junior employee would be distressed by any association with the adult store.
During the break, the trio agreed to order a product from Sexyland to be sent anonymously to Ms. Broersma at their workplace. Ms. Jury placed the order for a packet of “X-rated love heart confectionery” using her phone. During Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, the Commission found that Ms. Possingham encouraged the idea. She had told Ms. Jury “not to worry, it’ll be alright, it’ll be funny.”
On 3 April 2024, the parcel arrived at the Modbury North facility. Because the package was addressed to the centre and Ms. Possingham’s round included that street address, she was the one to hand the parcel to Ms. Broersma. The junior employee opened the package in private and found confectionery featuring sexually explicit phrases including “blow me”, “eat p*ssy”, “f*ck me”, “big dick”, “strip me” and “let’s f*ck.”
Ms. Broersma was “disgusted” and “shaken” by the prank, initially fearing the parcel had been sent by a male colleague. After she reported the incident, in April 2024 Australia Post initiated a workplace investigation into the potentially hostile work environment. The investigation soon expanded beyond the initial prank to include Ms. Possingham’s conduct during the inquiry itself.
Despite receiving written instructions to maintain strict confidentiality, investigators discovered that she had sent unsolicited text messages to Ms. Broersma’s mother. Ms. Possingham had also been seen in a staff car park soliciting character statements from potential witnesses. These actions led to a second set of allegations regarding a breach of confidentiality and a failure to follow lawful and reasonable directions.
On 30 May 2024, Australia Post, substantiated three primary grounds for disciplinary action. This included Ms. Possingham’s role in the initial Sexyland prank, her repeated breaches of confidentiality and her perceived dishonesty during the interviews. Through her solicitor, Ms. Possingham argued for leniency and raised procedural fairness issues. However, on 20 June 2024 Australia post went ahead with her termination of employment for serious misconduct.
In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Possingham contended that she was not a primary participant in the prank. She argued that she was a “mere bystander” and that her involvement was limited to handing over a parcel as part of her routine duties. She claimed that she did not order nor pay for the confectionary and was unaware it would contain such explicit language.
Regarding the alleged breaches of confidentiality, she argued that the restriction on speaking to colleagues was an “unreasonable direction” that compromised her right to defend herself. She also stated that any dishonesty during the investigation was “inadvertent” due to the stress of the situation and medication she was taking at the time.
Responding to Ms. Possingham’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Australia Post argued that she was “actively involved in the planning” of the prank. The employer pointed to the fact that Ms. Possingham had seven and a half years of service and should have pulled back when the younger Ms. Jury expressed doubts about the prank.
Australia Post also argued that Ms. Possingham’s repeated contact with the victim’s mother and her false denials to investigators constituted a breach of the duty of honesty and fidelity. The organisation argued that this effectively destroyed the trust and confidence necessary for the employment relationship to continue.
Ms. Possingham’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in December 2024. It preferred the evidence of the other employees over that of Ms. Possingham, describing her testimony as containing “half-truths, deflection and implausible denial.” The Commission found that Ms. Possingham was “actively and willingly” involved in the prank. It said that her conduct was “purposeful and recklessly indifferent to the consequences,” noting that she intended to cause discomfort to a junior colleague.
The Commission highlighted that Ms. Possingham’s attempt to shift the blame onto Ms. Jury, a younger and less experienced employee, was particularly “egregious.” It also upheld the confidentiality direction as a lawful and reasonable instruction intended to protect the integrity of the investigation. Ms. Possingham’s decision to approach staff in a car park to solicit character statements was found to be a clear breach of this direction.
Ultimately, the Commission found that Australia Post had a valid reason for termination of employment. It noted that Ms. Possingham showed no remorse and continued to maintain “false denials,” contributing to the finding that the termination of employment was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.
Read more: ‘Forced to quit’: Melbourne worker wins $27K for constructive dismissal
Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives assists employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination and workplace dispute matters. We provide clear, practical advice about where you stand, what the Commission considers, and the steps involved in making a claim.
Fair Work unfair dismissal claims must be lodged within 21 days of your employment ending, so acting quickly is essential. For a free, confidential initial discussion about your situation, contact us now on 1800 333 666.
