The Case

Ms Sologinkin had worked for Cosmetic Suppliers Pty Ltd T/A Coty (Coty) since May 2000. Ms Sologinkin was initially employed as a junior sales representative, then team leader and later as state sales manager. Ms Sologinkin had an unblemished employment history, and had never been issued with any warnings for misconduct or performance.

On 9 November 2016, Ms Sologinkin sent an “intemperate and inappropriate” email to the customer services team describing them as “totally incompetent”. In addition, Ms Sologinkin composed an email to a friend who would be working with Coty, disparaging a number of clients. The email included the email addresses of the clients. Ms Sologinkin accidentally sent the email to the clients as well as her friend. Ms Sologinkin tried to retrieve the email but her attempts failed.

One of the clients complained to Coty saying there “needs to be a consequence to this stupidity, await your advice”. Two clients indicated they would no longer deal with any company represented by Ms Sologinkin.

Coty asked Ms Sologinkin to respond to the allegations. Ms Sologinkin responded blaming:

• the stress of her position;
• the treatment she had been receiving for post-traumatic stress disorder;
• recent organisational changes in Coty;
• lack of sleep;
• the burden of handling complaints her colleagues had not adequately addressed;
• the unintentional nature of the email; and
• the failure of Coty’s email filter to stop an email containing a profanity from being sent.

Coty considered Ms Sologinkin’s explanation but decided to dismiss her. Coty indicated that the conduct was so serious that trust and confidence in the employment relationship had been destroyed.

Ms Sologinkin made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC).

Verdict

The FWC upheld the dismissal, finding the gravity of the misconduct outweighed Ms Sologinkin’s unblemished employment history and destroyed the necessary trust and confidence ingredient of the employment relationship, and seriously damaged Coty’s reputation with its clients.

The FWC held:

“…whatever the explanation as to how it happened, the ultimate responsibility must be borne by the applicant. The email not only had the potential to but clearly did in fact damage the respondent’s reputation and its relations with its clients.”

Lessons for You

The termination of an employee’s employment must be given careful consideration. The facts and circumstances of the case must be examined. Long-standing employees with unblemished employment histories are more likely to be able to succeed with unfair dismissal claims than those with short tenure or blemished histories. However, where the conduct is so bad that it destroys trust and confidence between employer and employee, termination of employment may be considered an appropriate outcome.

The decision is also a reminder of the importance of training employees in proper email etiquette, such as avoiding venting to colleagues by email and ensuring only the intended email recipients are copied to emails.

Please note: Case law is reported as correct and current at time of publishing. Be aware that cases in lower courts may be appealed and decisions subsequently overturned.