The Fair Work Commission has thrown out a dismissal claim brought by a Woolworths casual who claimed his feelings were hurt by a request to cover up his “plumber’s crack.” The worker alleged that Woolworths had violated the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. However, the Commission completely rejected the case, finding the worker was never actually fired and had launched the action solely as a speculative cash grab.
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work dismissal case: Anthony Davitkov v Woolworths Group Limited [2026]. Later, we’ll look at the story of a worker who tanked his Fair Work claim by telling his former boss, “When I strike, it’s not a fight—it’s a funeral.”
Anthony Davitkov worked as a casual employee at a Woolworths store in Victoria. The events that led to his Fair Work claim occurred during a standard casual shift. While working on the shop floor, an awkward interaction took place between Mr. Davitkov and a colleague. According to the Fair Work Commission, the colleague told Mr. Davitkov that “the cleft of his bottom was protruding from his trousers.” And it was suggested “in rude terms, that he cover up.”
The Commission described how following the remark, Mr. Davitkov became “upset” because his “feelings were hurt.” He then lodged a Fair Work claim accusing Woolworths of dismissing him and violating the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. He sought a monetary settlement from the company as compensation. The Commission noted that this Fair Work claim was Mr. Davitkov’s fifth within the space of two years.
In its decision, the Fair Work Commission asked the question, “What dismissal? That was what Woolworths wanted to know.” It noted that Mr. Davitkov remained at the company and performed his casual shifts after lodging the Fair Work claim. However, he eventually stopped doing his shifts and abandoned his casual role. The Commission therefore ruled that Mr. Davitkov had not actually been dismissed in the first place and therefore had no right to make a Fair Work claim.
The Commission said that Mr. Davitkov’s claim “had nothing to do” with termination of employment nor the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. It slammed him for making a “speculative” claim in order to win financial compensation, noting that it was simply a “nuisance” for Woolworths to defend. The Commission noted that it could not tell any of this to Mr. Davitkov as he had not responded to requests to attend a telephone hearing.
The Fair Work Commission noted that unmeritorious claims like Mr. Davitkov’s have “little to lose.” It said that not only is it unjust for employers to have to defend them, but that they also add to the time other unfairly dismissed workers have to wait for their Fair Work claims to be processed. The Commission lamented that there is “no effective disincentive” for frivolous claims and that is why there are so many of them, placing undue pressure on the tribunal.
Another recent example of a vexatious Fair Work claim that was thrown out is Peter Kha v Glenbourne Investments Pty. Ltd. [2025]. It involved a Sydney hospitality worker who lodged an unfair dismissal claim. During proceedings, the worker subjected his former employer to over 1,800 pages of abusive messages, which he openly admitted was a form of “psychological endurance testing.” In the end, he had his claim thrown out for behaviour that the Commission deemed was “deliberately vexatious” and “plainly unreasonable.”
In 2025, Peter Kha lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim against his employer Glenbourne Investments. The company operates a network of hospitality venues across Sydney, including the Beverly Hills Hotel, Kings Tavern and the Royal Exchange Hotel. Following initial disputes regarding the nature of Mr. Kha’s communications, the Fair Work Commission issued him strict directions to control the conduct of the case.
The explicit directions required Mr. Kha to confine his correspondence to Glenbourne Investments’s solicitors. He was directed to keep his correspondence relevant to the Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings. Mr. Kha was also ordered to only communicate with his former employer via its legal representative, Ms. L Kyriacou of Pigott Stinson Solicitors. He was strictly barred from contacting Glenbourne Investments’s staff directly. Mr. Kha’s Fair Work unfair dismissal hearing was listed to take place on 9 October 2025.
The events that led to the Fair Work Commission terminating Mr. Kha’s claim occurred between 30 September and 7 October 2025. Despite clear instructions and being warned of the consequences of disobeying the Commission’s orders, Mr. Kha started a massive campaign of non-compliance. Uncontested evidence cited by Ms. Kyriacou revealed that in a single week, Mr. Kha transmitted more than 205 emails to her. This amounted to a document trail exceeding 1,800 pages.
One-hundred and fifty-seven of these messages were copied directly to the Commission, while 50 were sent directly to individual staff members at Glenbourne Investments. This included its chief executive officer and his sons. The messages routinely contained photographs of company venues and employees.
In an email sent to Ms. Kyriacou on 6 October 2025, Mr. Kha referred to her as a “lioness of Greek origin.” He titled the email “The Lioness and Lessons of the 500 pages,” and wrote that “yes, I’ll admit, the humour in it was irresistible HAHA.” He went on to say that his emails had been “satirical” and that their “language dances between absurdity and genius.” Mr. Kha claimed that such correspondence “FORCES the opposition to wade through hundreds of pages of NONSENSE.” He argued that they would need to do so in order to work out whether his emails were “nonsense or prophecy.”
Mr. Kha claimed that his emails were not harassment, but rather “psychological endurance testing.” He further declared that no one enjoys reviewing 500 pages of “chaotic satire,” and that “NO NARCISSIST survives being OUT-REASONED by someone who WEAPONISED emojis, memes, and tone.”
The very next day, on 7 October 2025, Glenbourne Investments applied to have the unfair dismissal application dismissed under section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009. It requested this on the basis that Mr. Kha had unreasonably failed to comply with an order or direction. This came after Glenbourne Investments’s CEO and his sons received an email featuring explicit threats of physical violence against them, the company’s executive team and staff. Mr. Kha embedded an image containing violent text. The text stated: “If you step against Me, you better finish the job. Because when I shoot, it’s a double tap to the head.”
Mr. Kha went on to say that the CEO and his sons “won’t crawl” and “won’t recover,” but will “rot exactly where I left you.” He claimed that “I don’t play. I don’t warn. I end. There are no second chances when I move. The rant continued, with Mr. Kha saying that there will be “No redemption arcs. No post-battle confessions. When I strike, it’s not a fight—it’s a funeral. So if you ever come for Me, make sure you never miss. Because I won’t.”
Following this unhinged email, Mr. Kha sent another at 11:11 pm on 8 October 2025, the night before the Fair Work unfair dismissal hearing. It was sent to four Glenbourne Investments employees and contained threatening and disturbing material.
Mr. Kha’s dismissal application was heard by the Fair Work Commission on 9 October 2025. During the hearing, Mr. Kha offered no explanation for his conduct. He did not challenge any of the evidence put forward by Glenbourne Investments, and provided no evidence of his own. The Commission made the following findings:
Ultimately, the Commission granted the employer’s application and terminated Mr. Kha’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. Glenbourne Investments also made an application for legal costs. The Commission deferred the final determination of costs, allowing the employer 14 days to submit further evidence and submissions specifying the nature of the orders sought.
Yes, a casual employee can claim unfair dismissal with the Fair Work Commission, but strict eligibility criteria apply. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, a casual worker must have completed the minimum employment period (6 months, or 12 months for a small business) and have worked on a regular and systematic basis with a reasonable expectation of continuing employment.
A claim is considered vexatious by the Fair Work Commission when it is filed without a sound legal or factual basis and or has no obvious prospect of succeeding. Such claims are often used to harass an employer or force a financial settlement over an issue that does not warrant legal action. In Peter Kha v Glenbourne Investments Pty Ltd [2025], the unfair dismissal claim was thrown out due to the worker’s non-compliance with Commission orders.
Bypassing orders to communicate only through legal counsel, the worker launched an email blitz of over 205 messages directly to company staff. The correspondence contained memes and explicit physical threats. Fair Work described his conduct as “deliberate,” “vexatious” and designed to cause “inconvenience and distress” for his former employer.
Read more: 4 Times Dismissed Employees Got Workplace Revenge
If you’ve been unfairly dismissed, forced to resign, bullied, discriminated against, sexually harassed or otherwise had your workplace rights breached, getting experienced guidance early is critical.
We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives help workers nationwide navigate the Fair Work Commission. Our team can help you understand your rights, assess your situation objectively, and guide you through the Fair Work process from start to finish.
We offer a no win, no fee service and your first consultation with us is free and confidential. Fair Work claims generally must be lodged within 21 days of your dismissal taking effect, so contact us today on 1800 333 666 today.
