Page   18
Page   19
FOCUS HR  |  IR July Update 2026
FOCUS HR  |  IR July Update 2026
Few unfair dismissal decisions this year attracted as 
much attention as Donato v Queensland Venue Co 
Pty Ltd. What began as a workplace prank involving 
a collection of rubber ducks ultimately ended 
with two employees losing their jobs, a Fair Work 
Commission hearing and a decision that serves as an 
important reminder about workplace investigations, 
proportionality and common sense.
What Happened
Serena Donato and Emma Donato were employed by 
Queensland Venue Co and worked in a venue where 
workplace banter, practical jokes and light-hearted 
interactions between employees were not uncommon.
Over a period of time, small rubber ducks began 
appearing around the workplace. The ducks were 
placed in different locations and became something of 
an ongoing workplace joke. However, concerns arose 
when some of the ducks were arranged in the shape of 
a pentagram. A manager complained that the display 
was disturbing and inappropriate, describing it as a 
satanic image associated with the devil. The manager 
claimed the displays made her feel uncomfortable and 
intimidated and alleged that the conduct amounted to 
workplace bullying.
The matter escalated rapidly.
Rather than being treated as a workplace conduct 
issue capable of informal resolution, the allegations 
were investigated as potential serious misconduct. 
The employer formed the view that the employees had 
deliberately engaged in behaviour designed to intimidate 
and upset the manager.
Both employees were terminated without notice.
The employees subsequently lodged unfair dismissal 
applications in the FWC, arguing there was no valid 
reason for dismissal and that the employer had 
dramatically overstated the seriousness of the conduct.
During the hearing, evidence revealed that 
approximately one month after the dismissals occurred, 
the manager who had complained about the satanic 
symbolism obtained a tattoo of a pentagram. The 
Commission observed that a person genuinely terrified 
by the symbolism of a pentagram would be unlikely to 
voluntarily have the same symbol permanently tattooed 
on their body. The evidence significantly undermined the 
seriousness of the concerns that had formed the basis of 
the dismissals.
The Decision
The FWC ultimately concluded there was no valid 
reason for dismissal. After reviewing the evidence, 
the Commission found the conduct did not constitute 
workplace bullying and did not amount to serious 
misconduct. 
Why This Matters
Although the facts of the case  
are unusual, the principles applied by the 
Commission are highly relevant to all employers.
 
The decision reinforces several important 
workplace management principles:
•	allegations of bullying must be supported by 
evidence and assessed objectively;
•	workplace investigations must focus on facts 
rather than assumptions;
•	disciplinary outcomes must be proportionate to 
the conduct established; and
•	employers should avoid allowing emotional 
reactions to drive disciplinary decisions.
DONATO V QUEENSLAND VENUE CO PTY LTD [2026] FWC 362
The Commission was not satisfied that the employees 
had engaged in conduct intended to intimidate, threaten 
or psychologically harm the manager. Instead, the 
Commission considered the employer had incorrectly 
elevated what was, at worst, immature workplace 
behaviour into allegations of serious misconduct and 
that the employer’s conclusions were not supported by 
the evidence available at the time the dismissals were 
made. 
The Commission found both dismissals were harsh, 
unjust and unreasonable and declined to order 
reinstatement but awarded compensation to both 
employees.
Emma Donato was awarded compensation of $8,405.76.
Serena Donato was awarded compensation of 
$7,050.00.
FUTURE  
PREDICTIONS  
& EMERGING  
TRENDS

View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.