A Queensland hairdresser who allegedly called her manager a “c**t” has been awarded an unfair dismissal payout by the Fair Work Commission. The employer argued that her words were a threat, given she had also told the manager, “I hope karma gets you.” However, the Commission ruled that her words were not threatening but rather an “appeal to karmic intervention.” The Commission slammed the employer for its lack of due process and its reliance on the manager’s vague recount of the incident.
This unfair dismissal QLD case – Mrs. Tamara Depp v Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty Pty Ltd [2026] – goes to show that swearing at your boss does not always mean you can be fired for it. We’ll take you through the events of this case and later look at a recent unfair termination challenge by a Commonwealth bank director who swore at a colleague.
Tamara Depp started working at the Toogoom Hair Studio in Hervey Bay, Queensland in January 2024. The studio was purchased by Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty in December of that year. Following the takeover, Ms. Depp continued her role without a formal written contract for several months. Her performance was initially viewed positively. In March 2025, the salon’s director offered her additional managerial responsibilities and a pay increase.
It was not until May 2025 that the employer issued a formal casual employment contract. Ms. Depp chose not to sign this document immediately due to concerns regarding a specific clause which she intended to negotiate. During Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty cited this lack of a signed agreement as a reason for termination of employment. The business claimed it was left without any “clear agreement or structure moving forward.”
The event that led to Ms. Depp’s termination of employment took place on Saturday 7 June 2025. On that day, she had an argument with the salon manager, Nikki Reid, after a regular client of Ms. Depp’s was rebooked with a different stylist. During Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, the manager alleged that Ms. Depp was angry and confronted her “in front of a client.” While Ms. Depp apologised and believed she had received only a verbal warning, Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty issued her a dismissal email on 9 June 2025, offering two weeks’ notice.
However, two days later during her first shift of the notice period, Ms. Depp had another verbal stoush with the manager. Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty alleged that Ms. Depp told the manager “Don’t worry about contacting my clients,” before adding that she had contacted them and will be “taking them all with me.” She then added a parting shot, saying: “I hope karma gets you like the c**t you are.” This led Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty to revoke her notice and move to summary dismissal for serious misconduct. Ms. Depp later lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
In response to Ms. Depp’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty raised a jurisdictional objection. The business argued that because it was a small business employer, Ms. Depp was required to serve a minimum of twelve months to be eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim. The business claimed that her service prior to the December 2024 takeover should be disregarded because it had not explicitly agreed to recognise it. Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty further argued that Ms. Depp’s status as a casual worker meant there was no “regular and systematic” service to count toward the period.
The business also defended the summary termination by arguing that Ms. Depp’s comments were a direct threat to the salon manager. The employer characterised her words as “profane and threatening” and a form of serious misconduct that justified immediate dismissal without notice.
Ms. Depp admitted to the Commission that she had swore at the manager. But she claimed she had said “this is bullsh*t.” She denied swearing in front of customers, arguing the manager waited until a client left before initiating the argument. Ms. Depp maintained that her behaviour did not constitute serious misconduct. She said that her words were an expression of frustration rather than an attempt to threaten or intimidate. She argued that summary termination of employment was a disproportionate response.
Ms. Depp also argued that she met the minimum employment requirement to submit a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. She provided evidence of 19 shifts worked in the three months following the purchase and argued that her role remained “substantially the same” as her previous position. She contended that the “inconsistencies” in job titles cited by the employer were minor.
Ms. Depp’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in January 2026. It made a point of highlighting that “not all swearing will amount to a valid reason for dismissal.” The Commission accepted that calling the salon manager a “c**t” was “profane.” However, it did not deem her words to be “threatening.” The Commission described her words as an “appeal to karmic intervention” rather than a threat of anything she intended to do.
The Commission also took issue with Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty’s version of events. It said that its evidence was “imprecise” and only relied on the salon manager’s “vague” recount of the incident. The Commission noted that the manager had simply said that Ms. Depp had been “bad mouthing” her. It found that Ms. Depp was a reliable witness and accepted that she had really only said “this is bullsh*t.” The Commission also accepted that Ms. Depp had not swore in front of clients, finding that the manager’s version of events backed up her claim.
Turning to Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty’s jurisdictional objection, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the business’s argument that she had not served the minimum employment period. It noted that Ms. Depp was a “transferring employee” under the Fair Work Act 2009. The legislation recognises prior service by default unless the new employer informs the employee in writing before the new employment starts that it will be excluded. The Commission noted that Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty failed to provide this notice. It also confirmed Ms. Depp was a regular casual employee, as her timesheets showed a consistent pattern of work.
The Commission also found that the business had failed to comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. A critical finding was that the employer had “simply relied on” the salon manager’s account of the swearing incident without conducting a reasonable investigation. The Commission noted the business had also not allowed Ms. Depp to respond to the allegations made against her. It also said that her refusal to sign a contract was not a valid reason for termination of employment, as Ms. Depp was entitled to properly review the contract prior to accepting it.
Finding no valid reason for the sacking, the Commission turned to the matter of remedy. Reinstatement was ruled out due to “animosity,” and compensation was ordered. The Commission estimated Ms. Depp would have likely remained employed for only one more month given the “fractious relationship.” Based on her average hours and pay rates, Oz Seaside Hair And Beauty was ordered to pay $1,732.00 gross plus superannuation.
In January 2026, a Commonwealth Bank of Australia director launched unfair termination proceedings against his former bosses. Bradley Duff, who was a director in the major client group of the bank, was fired in September 2025 for swearing at a colleague. He took his unfair termination claim to the Federal Court of Australia, seeking compensation.
The Commonwealth Bank claimed that Mr. Duff had a “bullying” leadership style that allegedly left some team members refusing to work with him. The most specific allegations involve a junior male colleague. On one occasion, Mr. Duff was accused of “standing over” the staff member. He then aggressively demanded, “Do you want to get the deal done or not?” and “If you can’t get it done let me know.” On a separate date, he was alleged to have touched the same colleague on the shoulder. He then told that colleague to “calm the f*ck down.”
Mr. Duff admitted to swearing at the colleague. However, he maintained that his actions were a reaction to the extreme stress and did not constitute serious misconduct. Mr. Duff alleged that profanity was “commonplace” across all levels of Commonwealth Bank, from senior management down to the junior ranks.
He argued that by sacking him for language that was culturally prevalent, the bank engaged in selective enforcement. According to the court filings, comparable conduct by other senior leaders did not result in any disciplinary action, leading Mr. Duff to claim he was unfairly targeted.
Mr. Duff also claimed that he was pushed to the brink by systemic under-resourcing. Having managed a portfolio of clients with turnovers exceeding $150 million, he claimed that he repeatedly warned management that he was reaching a “breaking point.” Mr. Duff said that he sent emails to managers regarding his chronic workloads. In response, one manager allegedly told him “don’t let anyone hear you say that.”
Commonwealth Bank disputed Mr. Duff’s version of events. It said that they were already in the process of hiring four additional staff members to assist the team at the time. The bank also highlighted the fact that in the 2025 financial year, Mr. Duff’s lending portfolio had actually reduced in value. It said that he had failed to meet his specific leadership key performance indicators.
The fallout from the dismissal has had a significant impact on Mr. Duff’s personal well-being. Documents filed with the court reveal that he was diagnosed with a mental illness during his final weeks at CBA and claims he is currently unable to work. Notably, Mr. Duff is not seeking to be reinstated at Commonwealth Bank.
The Federal Court has recently ordered both Mr. Duff and Commonwealth Bank to attempt mediation. This is a standard step in Australian employment law, intended to see if a settlement can be reached before the matter proceeds to a full, public trial.
Read more: Swearing in the Workplace
If you have been dismissed after a workplace dispute, accused of misconduct or let go without a proper investigation, you may have grounds to challenge it. Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives assists workers across Australia with unfair dismissal, forced resignation, general protections and workplace rights claims.
Our team can guide you through what Fair Work looks at and what remedies may be available. Be aware: unfair dismissal claims must usually be lodged within 21 days of your dismissal. Miss the deadline and you may lose your chance to act.
Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for your free and confidential initial consultation.
