A government worker has admitted to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission that he dragged his employer through over a year’s worth of unfair dismissal proceedings as a “big f**k you.” The government department was forced to foot the bill for its legal team’s travel and accommodation costs for the court case in Cairns, which the worker did not show up for. He also admitted that he pursued the claim for “nothing more than a year of sh*ts and giggles.”
In this article, we’ll cover the full events of this unfair dismissal QLD case Cramp v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2026]. Later, we’ll look at the story of a UK worker who won over £370,000 after it was found her sacking was a revenge plot by her employer.
Cairns-based Troy Jonathon Cramp was an employee of Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads until his termination of employment in late 2024. On 11 November 2024, he lodged an unfair dismissal claim seeking to get his job back. Queensland Industrial Relations Commission records did not reveal what he was actually sacked for.
From November 2024 through to late 2025, his claim progressed through a conciliation conference and a formal process of filing and exchanging documents. This included the submission of affidavit evidence and written arguments in preparation for a full hearing. In August 2025, Mr. Cramp was told that his unfair dismissal claim would be heard over three days in December at the Cairns District Court.
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission records reveal that in the month leading up to the hearing, Mr. Cramp appeared fully engaged with the unfair dismissal process. During this time, he exchanged emails with the Department of Transport and Main Roads regarding preparations. He specifically acknowledged the department’s requirement to cross-examine a witness he wanted to appear during court proceedings, Mr. Anderson. The Commission remarked that Mr. Cramp expressed a “keenness” to have the matter dealt with through the court process. It said that he gave no indication that he intended to abandon the case.
On 16 December 2025, the three-day hearing was set to begin at the Cairns District Court. The Department of Transport and Main Roads’ legal team, three witnesses and three representatives turned up at the court. However, Mr. Cramp was nowhere to be seen. The Commission allowed for an adjournment to see if Mr. Cramp or his witnesses could be located. The department’s legal representative then called his prime witness, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson informed the solicitor that he had no knowledge of being required to give evidence that day The Commission concluded that Mr. Cramp had not informed his own witness of the proceedings.
Late in the evening of 16 December 2025, Mr. Cramp revealed the reason for his no-show via a series of blunt communications to the department’s solicitor. At 11:32 pm, he sent a WhatsApp message stating: “Lol, this whole year was just about wasting more of Qld govt money than the $17 k in pro rata LSL that was owed to me.”
At 11:50 pm, he followed up with an email. Mr. Cramp admitted to the solicitor that his unfair dismissal claim proceedings were “nothing more than a year of shits and giggles” for him. He suggested that the department should have simply paid his entitlements and concluded with the statement: “A big f**k you from me.” Following these admissions, the Department of Transport and Main Roads made an oral application to have the case thrown out.
The Department of Transport and Main Roads argued to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission that Mr. Cramp’s unfair dismissal claim should be thrown out as it was “vexatious.” It said that he had abandoned the proceedings and had acted in a way that amounted to an abuse of process. The department noted that its legal team had flown into Cairns for the court case in December 2025. They were accompanied by three witnesses, which saw the department incur significant costs for travel and accommodation. The department pointed out that Mr. Cramp had failed to attend court and had not even told his primary witness of the court dates.
On 20 January 2026, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission had to consider whether Mr. Cramp’s unfair dismissal claim should be thrown out. A critical component of the findings was the “hearsay” evidence provided of the conversation between the department’s legal team and Mr. Cramp’s chief witness Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson had reportedly told the legal team on the morning of the hearing that he had “no knowledge” of being required to give evidence that day. This hearsay evidence was admitted as it met the legal requirements of having “rational probative force.”
The most significant evidence, however, was a WhatsApp message sent by Mr. Cramp to the department’s solicitor at 11:32 pm on the first day of the hearing. This was the message where he admitted to “wasting” the Queensland government’s money and pursuing his unfair dismissal claim for “sh*ts and giggles.” The Commission found that Mr. Cramp had shown his intention to no longer be involved in the proceedings in any way. It said that he had pursued his unfair dismissal claim and had “entirely for the purpose of harassing” the department. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that Mr. Cramp had pursued his unfair dismissal claim vexatiously. It noted that his conduct caused unnecessary delay and wasted “Commission resources.” It also wasted the tax-payer dollars required to bring the department’s legal team and witnesses to Cairns. Mr. Cramp’s unfair dismissal claim was therefore thrown out
In May 2025, a UK primary school teacher who fell victim to a revenge sacking got the last laugh at a UK employment tribunal. Carmen Wood-Hope began teaching at The Friars Primary School in Salford, UK in 2014. Three years later, she was promoted to the senior leadership team. As the liaison and cohesion lead, Ms. Wood-Hope was responsible for relations between parents and staff. She impressed in the role. In March 2017, she received a pay award for her “highly competent” performance in the classroom.
But Ms. Wood-Hope’s time at the school soured when a new headteacher, Michael Earnshaw, was appointed in September 2018. His first point of business was to tell all staff that he was unilaterally changing the classroom observation protocol to allow for unannounced “drop-in” sessions. This meant that he could pop into classrooms unannounced to check on how things were running.
Ms Wood-Hope, acting as the workplace representative for the National Education Union, challenged this decision. She argued that it violated long-standing agreed terms. This led to a ballot for strike action by the school staff. Mr. Earnshaw eventually agreed to a modified five-day notice period for observations in November 2018.
However, Ms. Wood-Hope’s challenge saw the beginning of the breakdown of her relationship with Mr. Earnshaw. In March 2019, he escalated a minor incident into a formal investigation. Ms. Wood-Hope had apparently failed to ensure that a newsletter was sent out to parents as intended. Typically, this kind of oversight would have warranted a simple verbal reminder. But Mr. Earnshaw turned it into a formal investigation.
During this process, Ms. Wood-Hope suffered a panic attack and was subsequently absent from work for 48 days. Upon her return in June 2019, she was removed from her standard duties and placed on supply teacher tasks. Throughout 2019, Mr. Earnshaw compiled two years of negative comments about Ms. Wood-Hope’s teaching. Despite records showing her strengths “far outweighing” these criticisms, she was placed on a formal performance management plan.
Ms Wood-Hope refused to sign the plan, believing it was unjustified, and went on long-term sick leave due to work-related stress, anxiety and panic attacks. She eventually faced termination of employment in December 2020 on the grounds of incapacity due to sickness absence. She subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with a UK employment tribunal.
In her unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Wood-Hope argued that her termination of employment was “automatically unfair” because it was rooted in her activities as a union official. She contended that the performance management plan was “punitive” and that the evidence used to support it was “selective.” She said that her employer had deliberately constructed the evidence to be critical of her. Ms. Wood-Hope also argued that the school failed to make reasonable adjustments for her mental health conditions.
Ms Wood-Hope also raised arguments regarding the school’s conduct after her employment ended. She alleged that Mr. Earnshaw provided “damaging and inaccurate” references to recruitment agencies. Specifically, she claimed he described her as a “safeguarding risk” to prospective employers, an allegation she argued was entirely unsubstantiated. She contended to the tribunal that Mr. Earnshaw was attempting to ensure she “never worked in teaching again.”
Meanwhile, the school argued that Ms. Wood-Hope’s termination of employment was a genuine response to her prolonged absence and inability to return to her duties. It maintained that the classroom observations and subsequent performance plans were legitimate management tools intended to maintain educational standards. The school denied that the references were malicious. It said that they were a factual summary of her employment record and the concerns raised during her tenure.
At the unfair dismissal hearing, the UK employment tribunal concluded that Mr. Earnshaw’s actions were “tainted by a personal animosity.” It said that he “was intent on extracting revenge” for the challenges Ms. Wood-Hope made as a union representative. The tribunal was highly critical of the testimony offered by Mr. Earnshaw under cross-examination. It said that he was “unable” to explain his actions. The tribunal also found that he targeted Ms. Wood-Hope as a union official as he believed her actions prevented him from exercising “free reign” over the school.
The tribunal ruled that the bad references given by Mr. Earnsaw were designed to be “obstructive” of her efforts” to get a new job. It noted that Ms. Wood-Hope’s self-esteem was left “shattered” by her treatment and that the loss of her job forced her to sell her home. Given all these findings, the tribunal ruled that she had faced an unfair termination of employment for trade union reasons and was a victim of disability discrimination. It therefore ordered the school to pay her £370,563.53 (around AU$732,000) as compensation. This took into account past and future lost earnings, injury to feelings, personal injury, procedural failures and aggravated damages for “malicious conduct.”
Read more: Unlawful and Unfair Dismissal Explained
Employers across Australia fear us at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) for our track record standing up for worker’s rights and holding employers to account at the Fair Work Commission. For over 20 years, we’ve helped over 16,000 workers get justice after experiencing unfair dismissal, forced resignation, general protections, sexual harassment or discrimination. Strict time limits apply for lodging Fair Work claims, so act now. Contact us today on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential initial consultation.
