Recruiter’s Past Lies Sink General Protections Claim

A recruiter who claimed he was dismissed for raising a bullying complaint has lost his bid for a $50,000 general protections payout. A federal court found the recruiter had a history of dishonesty that made him an unreliable witness. This included a prior Fair Work Commission finding that he had lied to a former employer, and his own admission that he had “embellished” his CV. The court preferred the employer’s testimony, finding it had decided to sack the recruiter five days before he lodged the complaint. The court ruled that underperformance, not bullying, was the true reason for his termination.

The Fair Work general protections case – Treffry v Bluescope Steel Ltd [2026] – is a reminder that lying on your resume is not a risk worth taking and can come back to bite you years later. Later in this article, we explore the case of an SES commander who lied about his education for years before it cost him his career entirely.

Case summary: Treffry v Bluescope Steel Ltd [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
  
  
• Key employee argument: Claimed he was sacked because he made a bullying complaint, amounting to adverse action and unlawful termination.
  
  
• Key employer argument: Argued the decision to terminate employment was made five days before the bullying complaint was lodged. Performance issues were the reason for his sacking.
  
  
• Court ruling: Dismissed the Fair Work general protections claim, finding the bullying complaint was not the reason for termination of employment.

Recruiter’s lies tank Fair Work general protections claim

NSW-based Will Treffry started working for BlueScope Steel as a talent acquisition partner in June 2024, reporting to his manager Kim Mitchell. According to the Fair Work general protections proceedings, Ms. Mitchell claimed that within his first days on the job Mr. Treffry told her he had “a really bad memory.” She also claimed that he appeared reluctant to use his computer without help.

Roughly two weeks into the job, Ms. Mitchell raised concerns that Mr. Treffry had not actioned several “Authority to Hire” requests within the required timeframe. She set up weekly check-in meetings with him from that point.

‘Too slow’: HR asked for recruiter to be pulled off urgent role

Further performance concerns followed over the coming months. Ms. Mitchell claimed that Mr. Treffry failed to complete tasks properly. He was also removed from an urgent recruitment job because he was considered too slow. In September 2024, Mr. Treffry was called into a meeting with Ms. Mitchell to discuss complaints about his attention to detail. Ms. Mitchell later formed the view that Mr. Treffry’s employment should not continue past his probation period.

Five days later, Mr. Treffry lodged a formal bullying complaint. He alleged he had been subjected to “unfair standards” and “repeated baseless criticism.” In his Fair Work general protections claim, Mr. Treffry said that the complaints about his work caused him to suffer a nervous breakdown, making him unfit to work. Following an investigation into the complaints,  in October 2024 Mr. Treffry was told the concerns raised about him were performance based, not bullying.

Brother’s death led to ‘insensitive’ request for evidence

In the same period, Mr. Treffry’s brother died by suicide. He was later asked to provide documentary evidence of the death to support his compassionate leave claim. Mr. Treffry said the request caused him distress, but he later provided a statutory declaration to prove his brother’s death. He also submitted a workers’ compensation claim stating he had no capacity for work.

On 22 November 2024, two days before his probation period was due to end, BlueScope terminated his employment. The company cited concerns about his inability to perform his role and the errors he had consistently made.

Why did the recruiter argue he had been unlawfully dismissed?

Mr. Treffry, who represented himself, lodged a Fair Work general protections claim alleging his dismissal amounted to adverse action. He argued:

• The close timing between his bullying complaint and his dismissal showed that the complaint, a protected workplace right, was the real reason for his termination.
  
  
• The concerns raised in his termination of employment letter differed from those raised in earlier meetings.
  
  
• Ms. Mitchell had repeatedly acknowledged his strong performance during his employment.
  
  
• Ms. Mitchell was not solely responsible for the decision to dismiss him.
  
  
• The bullying investigation should have been conducted by an external investigator, not internally.

Why did the employer argue the dismissal was lawful?

In response to the Fair Work general protections claim, BlueScope argued the following:

• Ms. Mitchell made the final decision to dismiss Mr. Treffry and had done so five days before he lodged his bullying complaint.
  
  
• There was documented evidence of performance concerns dating back to Mr. Treffry’s second week of employment.
  
  
• In 2013, Mr. Treffry had brought an unfair dismissal claim against his employer. In that case, the Fair Work Commission found that he had lied to his employer about damaging his passport after a fall while hiking in China, in order to explain his failure to return to work. The Commission said his employer had “grave and justifiable concerns” about Mr. Treffry’s honesty.
  
• Mr. Treffry had admitted that he embellished his CV. He admitted to extending a period of employment with a previous employer to conceal a period of unemployment.

Why did the court reject the recruiter’s general protections claim?

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia delivered its decision on Mr. Treffry’s Fair Work general protections claim in May 2026. The court dismissed the claim for the following reasons:

• Ms. Mitchell was a “credible witness.” The court accepted that only she made the dismissal decision and had done so prior to the bullying complaint being lodged.
  
  
• Mr. Treffry continued to demonstrate an “incapacity” to perform his job. His “lack of communication” led to the complaints against him from throughout the business.
  
  
• Mr. Treffry sought to “deflect” responsibility for the complaints and was “neither willing nor able” to accept responsibility.
  
  
• His bullying complaints were an attempt to “muddy the waters” in order to make an unfair dismissal claim. They were also used to “deflect criticism” of his underperformance.
  
  
• Mr. Treffry’s evidence should be treated with a “considerable degree of scepticism.” This was based on the prior Fair Work Commission finding that he had lied to his employer and his admission that he had falsified parts of his CV.
  
  
• BlueScope’s request for evidence of his brother’s death “could be described as insensitive.” However, it did not play any part in the decision to dismiss him.

Convicted fake nurse dismissed again after lying on his CV

Another recent dismissal case that involved an employee whose lies caught up to him is McLennan v Industrial Relations Secretary o/b NSW State Emergency Service [2025].  Former NSW State Emergency Service deputy zone commander Scott McLennan lost his bid for reinstatement after the NSW Industrial Relations Commission found he had “entirely made up” university qualifications listed on his CV. Mr. McLennan, who had already been convicted of posing as a registered nurse in Western Australia, argued he had simply been careless when he claimed to hold a nursing degree and an MBA. The Commission rejected this, finding his explanations were “self-serving and disingenuous” and upholding his termination of employment.

Case summary: McLennan v Industrial Relations Secretary o/b NSW State Emergency Service [2025]

• Jurisdiction: NSW Industrial Relations Commission.
  
  
• Key employer argument: The worker had been “repeatedly dishonest” across three separate job applications by listing qualifications he did not hold.
  
  
• Key employee argument: Argued he had never claimed to hold completed degrees. Any errors were the result of careless CV drafting and a lapse in memory, not dishonesty.
  
  
• Commission outcome: The worker had deliberately misrepresented his qualifications and termination of employment was justified.

SES commander and ‘fake nurse’ fired for fabricating CV

Scott McLennan started as a volunteer with the NSW State Emergency Service (SES) in August 2019, not long after relocating from Western Australia to NSW. In 2019, the West Australian Magistrates Court had convicted him of two offences of holding himself out to be a registered nurse. He had worked as general manager of a Fremantle cosmetic clinic, where he administered treatments including Botox, fillers and chemical peels. Mr. McLennan had misleadingly claimed to a friend who hired him that he had worked “in the nursing industry for 20 to 30 years.” He also admitted to the national health regulator that he had studied nursing but did not actually complete a qualification. He was fined $15,000 and ordered to pay $4,000 in legal costs.

In June 2022, Mr. McLennan applied for the role of Zone Community Capability Officer at NSW SES. In his submitted CV, he listed his education as “MONASH UNIVERSITY, MBA (MANAGEMENT) 2005” and “UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, BACHELOR OF NURSING 1998”. Regarding the MBA, records showed he had in fact enrolled in undergraduate psychology and marketing units, failing two of them.

Mr. McLennan secured the role, and later reused the same CV entries when applying for the same position on a full-time basis in March 2023. He used them again when applying for the role of Deputy Zone Commander in August 2023. On accepting the latter role, he signed a declaration confirming that any qualifications submitted in support of his application were genuine.

Newspaper article triggered internal investigation

The matter came to a head after a journalist from The Australian contacted the SES in May 2025 about Mr. McLennan’s 2019 convictions. The paper published an article referring to Mr. McLennan as a “convicted fraudster” and noting that he had admitted to lying to the national health regulator. The SES then asked him to provide evidence of his nursing qualification. Mr. McLennan responded that he had studied the degree “between 1996 and 1998” but had not completed it.

He was suspended on full pay on 20 May 2025 pending a formal investigation. That investigation found he had been dishonest in each of his three job applications. The SES then gave him the opportunity to resign. When he did not do so by the deadline, he was dismissed effective 15 August 2025.

Why did the commander believe he faced unjustified dismissal?

Mr. McLennan subsequently lodged an appeal to his termination of employment with the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, arguing the following:

• He had not been deliberately dishonest but had been careless in preparing his CV.
  
  
• His CV listed courses under the heading “Education” rather than “Qualifications.” He claimed these courses “were never presented as completed degrees.”
  
  
• He had “held the honest belief” he had completed subjects for the MBA. He said his mistake was “due to memory lapse rather than dishonesty.”
  
  
• Neither the nursing or MBA qualifications were essential requirements for the roles he obtained. There was no evidence the interview panels had relied on his educational history in selecting him.

Meanwhile, the SES rejected these explanations. It submitted that Mr. McLennan had been “repeatedly dishonest” in his three job applications. It argued its disciplinary powers had been properly used to protect the NSW public from a “man with a history of dishonesty.”

Why did the Industrial Relations Commission dismiss the appeal?

In December 2025, the NSW Industrial Relations Commission Commissioner found that Mr. McLennan’s arguments were “inherently implausible” and “internally inconsistent.” The Commission made the following findings:

• Mr. McLennan had “entirely made up” the date recorded in his CV for his nursing studies.
  
  
• His claim to have believed he completed MBA subjects was “simply unbelievable.” It was noted that his transcript showed only a failed undergraduate semester in unrelated subjects.
  
  
• His emphasis on using the heading “Education” rather than “Qualifications” was a “disingenuous” attempt to explain away what is “otherwise obvious.”

• The fake education listings in his CV were “a deliberate attempt” to stand out from other candidates, “knowing full well” he did not hold those qualifications.
  
  
• Mr. McLennan’s claim he had never held himself out as holding the qualifications was “disingenuous and plainly not true.”
  
  
• Had Mr. McLennan made an isolated misstatement and then confessed, dismissal may not have been fair. But he had continued providing “false responses” when confronted with the allegations.

Fair Work dismissal FAQs

1. Can companies find out if you lied in your CV?

Yes, employers can uncover CV dishonesty through the likes of reference checks, qualification verification with universities or training providers and criminal history checks. Discrepancies can also surface years later during unrelated disputes, workplace investigations or court proceedings.

This is what happened in McLennan v Industrial Relations Secretary [2025]. In that case, a newspaper article about Mr. McLennan’s criminal conviction prompted his employer to review his recruitment file. This in turn exposed university qualifications he had listed on his CV but never actually obtained. The NSW Industrial Relations Commission found his lies amounted to serious misconduct, and upheld his dismissal.

2. Is lying on a CV illegal?

Lying on a CV is not automatically a criminal offence, but could be considered one depending on the circumstances. It can also amount to misconduct that justifies dismissal. This was central to the case McLennan v Industrial Relations Secretary [2025], which involved an SES commander who listed university qualifications he did not hold. The NSW Industrial Relations Commission found this was a serious breach of his employer’s code of conduct and fraud policy, and that his dismissal was justified.

Read more: Are They Just Dangling the Carrot? Employer Lies During Recruitment

Have you been unfairly dismissed?

We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives help employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, general protections, forced resignation and sexual harassment claims. With strict deadlines applying to many Fair Work claims, getting advice early is essential.

Your initial consultation with us is free and private. Contact us today on 1800 333 666.