The Fair Work Commission has tripled the unfair dismissal payout sought by a Sydney worker who was hounded for proof of her grandmother’s death in order to take bereavement leave. The worker was subjected to persistent demands for a death certificate and “inexplicable” requests for a first aid certificate while still she was grieving. The employer claimed its staff were left “distressed” by calls it received from the worker’s mother. However, the Commission found there was nothing aggressive about them and said the employer had been “unreasonable.”
In this article, we’ll look at the events of this unfair dismissal NSW case Bianca Knott v Tru Ninja Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we’ll explore the case of a NSW stevedore who was fired after being spotted at a restaurant while on personal leave for a family death.
Bianca Knott began working for entertainment venue Tru Ninja as a part-time supervisor and administrator in June 2024. She worked 22.5 hours per week under the Amusement Award. The events that led to her termination of employment began on 19 September 2025 when Ms. Knott’s grandmother died unexpectedly. That day, Ms. Knott texted Tru Ninja’s operations manager saying that she would be absent from work for the rest of her week. Ms. Knott later told her that she wanted to take bereavement and personal leave.
Following this notification, the manager asked Ms. Knott for documentation to support her bereavement leave application. Ms. Knott called the manager to tell her that she was unable to provide such material so soon after the death. On 23-24 September 2025, Ms. Knott’s mother and her cousin contacted Tru Ninja to advocate for her bereavement leave to be processed. The company continued to send emails requesting a death certificate, funeral notice or statutory declaration. The operations manager also requested a working with children check and a first aid certificate. The Fair Work Commission would later label these requests as “inexplicable.”
On 25 September 2025, Tru Ninja’s business director suggested Ms. Knott use annual leave for her absence. He also requested further verification after she provided a medical certificate and a police event number as interim evidence. The business director requested a police report or official acknowledgment email to verify the event number. He told Ms. Knott that compassionate leave would only be paid once this was received. On 29 September 2025, Ms. Knott sent an email stating she had a “right to disconnect from work” and provided a funeral notice. The business director rejected this right and warned of disciplinary action for failing to follow directions.
Tru Ninja subsequently scheduled a meeting with Ms. Knott for 9 October 2025. The day before the meeting, she was emailed a written warning. At the meeting she was presented with a final warning and then summarily dismissed for serious misconduct. The termination of employment letter specified four primary reasons. Firstly, that Ms. Knott had provided personal contact details of managers to a third party which allegedly led to “threatening and abusive calls.” Secondly, that she refused to provide required leave evidence. Thirdly, that she failed to follow directions to read or respond to communications. And finally, that Ms. Knott had behaved in a way that caused distress to management staff. This included Tru Ninja’s co-owner, who was heavily pregnant.
Ms. Knott subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. She argued that it was impossible to provide the requested documentation in the immediate aftermath of her grandmother’s passing. Ms. Knott relied on witness statements from herself and her family members to support her version of events. She also argued that she was misled about the purpose of the October 9 meeting. Ms. Knott claimed she was told that it would simply be a “check in” rather than a formal disciplinary hearing that would result in her termination of employment.
She also told the Commission that she was denied procedural fairness. She noted that she received a written warning on October 8, a final warning during the meeting the next day, and was fired immediately after. Ms. Knott contended that she was denied any real opportunity to address the allegations or improve her conduct. In addition, Ms. Knott argued that she had a right to disconnect from work during her period of bereavement. She said Tru Ninja’s persistent emails and demands for evidence while she was grieving were intrusive and unreasonable.
In response to Ms. Knott’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Tru Ninja argued that there was a valid reason for termination of employment based on her conduct. It also affirmed that she had been granted procedural fairness. The employer’s primary concern was the “interference of a third party” in the company’s affairs. Also, the perceived “threatening and abusive” nature of the calls made by Ms. Knott’s mother. Tru Ninja argued that the conduct had “irreparably damaged” the employment relationship and breached the standards expected of an employee. The company maintained that Ms. Knott’s refusal to correspond directly with owners constituted a failure to follow lawful and reasonable directions.
Mr. Knott’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in February 2026. In evaluating whether there was a valid reason for the termination of employment, the Commission reviewed the communications that occurred in September 2025. It found that the calls from Ms. Knott’s mother were “abrupt and firm” but did not qualify as rude or abusive. The Commission said that Tru Ninja’s requests for Ms. Knott to prove the death of her grandmother were “unreasonable.” Consequently, it determined there was no valid reason for termination of employment related to Ms. Knott’s conduct or capacity.
The judgment noted that Ms Knott’s actions did not breach the definition of serious misconduct in her contract. Regarding procedural fairness, the Commission found that issuing a warning on 8 October 2025, followed by a final warning and dismissal the next day, did not constitute a reasonable opportunity to respond to the reasons for dismissal.
The Fair Work Commission highlighted that Tru Ninja failed to account for Ms. Knott’s personal circumstances. It said that the company “should have stepped back” and given Ms. Knott time to grieve. The Commission noted that while Tru Ninja was a relatively small business without HR advisors, it did have access to the Workplace Ombudsman small business hotline. The company did not avail this resource during the termination of employment process.
Ultimately, the Commission ruled that Ms. Knott’s sacking had been unfair. Reinstatement was deemed inappropriate by both parties, so compensation was ordered. Although Ms. Knott sought four weeks’ pay, the Commission said that it was “not constrained by what is sought.” It then tripled her unfair dismissal payout to cover 12 weeks’ pay. In the end Ms. Knott was awarded $7,596 in compensation plus $911.52 superannuation.
The following events took place in the unfair dismissal NSW case David Jenkins v Qube Ports Pty Ltd (Port Kembla) [2025]. David Jenkins started working as a stevedore with Qube Ports in April 2021, operating out of its Port Kembla site in New South Wales. On 26 January 2025, which was Australia Day, Mr. Jenkins was rostered to work a shift starting at 4pm. However, at around 7am that morning, he received a phone call from his stepfather informing him that his stepfather’s sister had passed away three days prior.
Mr. Jenkins, who was close to his auntie and spoke with her weekly, attended his stepfather’s home shortly after the call. This was so he could provide support to the distressed man, who was in his mid-seventies. During Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, Mr. Jenkins said that his own distress was “compounded” by the loss of his mother in 2024. Around midday, he used Qube Ports’ automated system to apply for personal leave. When he returned home in the afternoon, his partner urged him to attend a pre-arranged dinner at a restaurant with friends. She said that this would help “take his mind off things.”
While at the restaurant that evening, Mr. Jenkins was spotted by Qube Ports’ operations manager, who allegedly “refused to shake his hand.” The next day, Mr. Jenkins provided a statutory declaration to his employer saying that he was unable to attend work the previous day due to “family matters.” Qube Ports subsequently issued a letter on 28 January 2025 suspending him with pay.
The day after, it sent him a letter alleging serious misconduct, misuse of personal leave on 26 January 2025 and a breach of the company’s code of conduct. Following this, Mr. Jenkins provided Qube Ports with a funeral home death notice. However, the company told him that this was not sufficient proof of his stepfather’s sister’s passing. On 7 March 2025, Qube Ports moved ahead with Mr. Jenkins’ termination of employment.
Mr. Jenkins subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. He argued that he was “too distracted by grief” to work safely on the day of his personal leave. Mr. Jenkins also pointed out that he had legitimately accessed this leave as allowed under Qube Ports’ enterprise agreement. The agreement had a clause that covered absences due to an “unexpected emergency” of a member of the employee’s “immediate family.” Mr. Jenkins also claimed that Qube Ports had simply been “going through the motions” before proceeding with his termination of employment.
Qube Ports responded to Mr. Jenkins’ Fair Work unfair dismissal claim by saying he had not provided a “credible” version of events regarding the family death. The company claimed that he was aware of the dinner plans before calling in to take personal leave. Qube Ports also argued that Mr. Jenkins was fit to work on his day of leave. It noted that he had driven himself to his stepfather’s house without difficulty. They argued that “his dishonesty was misconduct” which provided a sufficient reason for the termination of employment.
Qube Ports obtained orders for the production of documents, including mobile phone records and restaurant booking details. However, the company noted that Mr. Jenkins did not comply with them.
Mr. Jenkins’ Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in August 2025. It rejected Qube Ports’ claim that Mr. Jenkins misused his personal leave. And it decided that the conduct alleged by the company did not actually occur. The Commission accepted the testimony of Mr. Jenkins’ partner, describing her as a “better witness than the applicant.” It concluded that the decision to attend the dinner was only made on the afternoon of 26 January 2025.
The Commission rejected the Qube Ports’ argument that Mr. Jenkins was fit to work as he had driven to his stepfather’s house. It said that driving for a few minutes is “materially different” from driving vehicles during a full shift. However, the Commission had “serious reservations” about Mr. Jenkins’ compliance with the notice to produce documents. It labelled his attitude as “cavalier,” but despite this, it was not proof that he had improperly taken personal leave.
Finding that Mr. Jenkins’ termination of employment was unfair, the Fair Work Commission considered a remedy. It noted that he had a “satisfactory” work history and held no grudge against Qube Ports. The Commission therefore ruled that reinstatement was appropriate. The company was ordered to reappoint Mr. Jenkins to his former position within14 days and maintain his continuity of service. The Commission also ordered Qube Ports to compensate Mr. Jenkins for lost pay. The parties were directed to confer on the final amount.
Read more: Can I get fired for not having a medical certificate?
As you read in this article, employers don’t always get it right when they terminate workers. If you believe you’ve been unfairly terminated or have had your workplace rights violated, we can help.
Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives assists employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, general protections disputes, redundancy, forced resignation matters and sexual harassment complaints. We can help you assess whether you have a solid case to take to the Fair Work Commission and help you get compensation from your employer
Unfair dismissal applications must be lodged within 21 days of your employment ending, so timing is critical. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and private discussion about your situation.
