A Sydney sales manager accused of serious misconduct for using his work email to search for a new job has been awarded a huge Far Work unfair dismissal win. The Commission rejected the worker’s claim that he was simply ‘networking.’ However, it ruled that termination of employment for seeking a new job while at work did not warrant summary termination of employment. In the end, the worker was awarded an over $28,000 unfair dismissal payout.
In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal NSW case Josh Westerberg v Volando Group Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we explore the case of a worker who also faced summary termination of employment for searching for a new opportunity via her work email.
Joshua Westerberg started working for US-headquartered Volando Group in July 2024 as its operations and sales manager. The company sold its own brand of tequila. His was a senior role in a small team of just three employees. Mr. Westerberg financially invested a significant amount in the startup. In February 2025, he loaned Volando Group $20,000 and used $4,973 of his own funds for client costs. Mr. Westerberg told the Fair Work Commission that these debts remained unpaid at the time of his termination of employment.
By the middle of 2025, his relationship with management became strained after the appointment of a national sales director. Throughout August and September 2025, the sales director raised multiple performance concerns with Mr. Westerberg. These were specifically about his scheduling of weekly tastings and the saving of company records.
On the morning of 9 September 2025, Mr. Westerberg sent an email from his work account to a gym business. Attached was his resume with a message stating that he would “love to have a chat with someone if the opportunity presents.” The resume noted he was “deeply passionate” about health and wellness and that he was eager to transition into this space. Three days later, on 12 September 2025, Mr. Westerberg requested personal leave until 2 October 2025. He said this was to “allow time to consider my options” after being told about his performance issues.
Not long after this request, Volando Group’s US-based co-founder reviewed the company’s business records. This was triggered by reports of Mr. Westerberg’s performance issues. The co-founder found the email he sent to the gym. He concluded that seeking alternative employment during work hours constituted a fundamental breakdown of the employment relationship. On the same day, he decided that Mr. Westerberg would face termination of employment for serious misconduct.
Mr. Westerberg subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. He argued that his termination of employment for serious misconduct was a disproportionate response. Mr. Westerberg claimed that the email to the gym was an exercise in “networking” rather than a formal job application. He said that the email recipient was a “very connected individual” who could have helped find buyers for Volando Group’s tequila. Mr. Westerberg also argued he was denied procedural fairness. He said that he was dismissed via email without a chance to respond to the allegations or have a support person present. He submitted that his actions did not meet the legal definition of serious misconduct.
Responding to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Volando Group argued that Mr. Westerberg’s conduct was “wilful or deliberate” behaviour inconsistent with the continuation of his employment. The employer contended that seeking external work during business hours using company systems represented a breach of his obligation to devote his full time and attention to the business. Volando Group argued that given the startup nature of the firm, such a breach justified immediate dismissal for serious misconduct.
Mr. Westerberg’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in February 2026. It rejected his “networking” excuse, finding that the email was clearly an attempt to “sound out” a new job. However, the Commission found that this did not amount to serious misconduct and that a summary termination of employment was “disproportionate.” The Commission noted that while there was a breach of the company’s email policy, it was not “serious or persistent.”
The Commission was also critical of the lack of procedural fairness. It noted that Mr. Westerberg was never given a chance to explain himself. This was because the dismissal was executed entirely via email so soon after the co-founder discovered the resume. Because there was no valid reason for the dismissal and Mr. Westerberg was given no opportunity to respond, the Commission ruled the sacking was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable.
As Mr. Westerberg was not seeking reinstatement, the Commission ordered compensation. It estimated that due to the existing performance tensions, Mr. Westerberg would likely have only remained employed for another 15 weeks. He was awarded $28,374.30 in compensation plus $3,404.92 in superannuation.
Another recent example of a worker fired for serious misconduct for allegedly jobseeking is the unfair dismissal NSW case Belinda Taft v The Trustee for Simon Bando Family Trust [2025]. Belinda Taft began working for Go Home Lifestyle Products, a small commercial furniture brand, in November 2023. At the time of her termination of employment, she had worked as a casual employee for approximately 16 months, attending the office two to three days per week.
The relationship between Ms. Taft and the company’s managing and creative director, Simon Bando, had become strained by early 2025. Ms. Taft was unhappy with her wage rate and the late payment of her superannuation. She also felt her role was at risk after an intern was hired. She told the Fair Work Commission that she felt Mr. Bando was trying to “push her out the door.”
In February 2025, while Ms. Taft was away on holiday leave, Mr. Bando accessed her work emails. He discovered emails with one of Go Home’s suppliers, Indesign Group, and a direct competitor, Maxton Fox. The supplier had introduced Ms. Taft to the competitor, noting that she might be looking for a new role. Mr. Bando also found a Microsoft Outlook calendar invitation for a meeting at a North Sydney restaurant. This was scheduled on a day Ms. Taft had claimed she was still on holiday and unavailable for work.
Ms. Taft returned from leave on 18 March 2025. She arrived at work 15 minutes late and was making coffee when Mr. Bando requested a meeting. He had already drafted a termination of employment letter before she arrived and gave it to her. Mr. Bando alleged that Ms. Taft had engaged in serious misconduct by using a company supplier and her work email to facilitate a job search with a competitor. He claimed she had lied about her holiday dates to attend an interview and that he had lost all trust in her.
Ms. Taft subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. She argued that she was denied procedural fairness and that her termination of employment for serious misconduct was a “knee-jerk” reaction. Ms. Taft claimed that she had tried to explain to Mr. Bando that the supplier’s email was unsolicited and that she had not used work time to respond. However, she said that Mr. Bando told her: “I don’t care. I don’t believe you. You’re fired.”
In response to Ms. Taft’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Go Home argued that she had engaged in serious misconduct by using a company supplier to facilitate an introduction to a direct competitor. The company contended that Ms. Taft had been job seeking during work hours and had misused company resources. It further alleged that she had been deceptive, claiming she was on holiday when she was actually attending a job interview. The discovery of the interview invitation on Ms. Taft’s work calendar was the “final straw” that proved she was no longer acting in the company’s best interests.
The company justified the summary nature of the termination of employment. It said it was fair as Ms. Taft had been “unprofessional” and had disparaged the business. Go Home claimed that she had a conversation in November 2024 with someone at Indesign Group. It was argued that Ms. Taft had disclosed internal disputes regarding pay and superannuation to a long-term supplier.
Ms. Taft’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in September 2025. It found that Go Home did not have reasonable grounds to believe Ms. Taft had engaged in serious misconduct. The Commission stated that seeking alternative employment is a normal part of working life and does not inherently breach an employee’s obligations. It found that Mr. Bando’s belief that Ms. Taft had used work time or email to seek a new job was not based on solid evidence.
The Commission accepted that Ms. Taft had been seeking a new work opportunity in her own time, as she had been on leave when she had the interview. It said that the ability to do this is a protected right. Regarding the unprofessional conversation with the supplier in November 2024, Ms. Taft admitted to the Commission that it happened. She said that it happened after an argument with Mr. Bando over late superannuation payments. Ms. Taft said that she “almost burst into tears” during the phone call with the supplier. She reportedly told the contact, “Oh my God, I just had a fight with Simon,” and discussed how difficult it was to “get money out of” the business.
The Commission labelled Ms. Taft’s decision to converse with the supplier in that way as “poor judgement in the heat of the moment.” However, it found that it was an isolated incident that did not provide a valid reason for a serious misconduct termination of employment.
The Fair Work Commission was highly critical of the way the termination of employment was handled by Go Home. It found that because the termination letter was prepared in advance, Ms. Taft was not given a “genuine opportunity to respond” to the concerns. The Commission said that while the employer was a small business without HR expertise, it still had an obligation to follow a fair process. It determined there was no valid reason for the termination of employment and that the serious misconduct dismissal was unjust.
Reinstatement was deemed inappropriate because Ms. Taft believed the “working environment was hostile” and the relationship had “deteriorated significantly.” Therefore, the Commission ordered compensation to be awarded. It estimated that had she not been fired, Ms. Taft would have likely stayed with the company for a further four weeks while she looked for other work. Consequently, the Commission ordered the Go Home to pay Ms. Taft $2,600 gross in compensation, representing four weeks of pay.
Read more: Secret Second Job Ends in Serious Misconduct Dismissal
These two Fair Work cases serve as a warning to employers that they cannot summarily fire workers simply for networking or seeking a new role, even if they do so via a work email. If you believe you have been the victim of an unlawful termination, we can help.
Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) supports employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal and general protections disputes. We have a proven track record of holding employers to account and ensuring workers get the compensation they deserve.
Strict 21-day deadlines apply for lodging a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, so do not delay. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential initial consultation.
