Blog

The Incident That Started It All

The workplace exchange that would ultimately cost dnata $36,468 happened on March 9, 2025, at Perth Airport around 4:30 PM. Ms Sewell was working at her computer when a male colleague approached her about an upcoming social event they would both attend.

The conversation took an uncomfortable turn when he suggested she “wear a hijab with a short mini skirt” because it would “look really good on her”.

Ms Sewell repeatedly said “no,” but the male employee persisted with his comments. She felt so uncomfortable that she made up an excuse about needing to check a printer in another office just to get away from the situation.

An hour later, colleagues noticed Ms Sewell’s visible distress. After hearing what had happened, they encouraged her to report the incident. That same day, she emailed her duty manager detailing the exchange and explaining how it made her “extremely uncomfortable”.

dnata's Response Falls Short

Eleven days after Ms Sewell reported the incident, dnata informed her the investigation would close with no disciplinary action because her claims “could not be substantiated”. The company also refused to adjust schedules to separate the two employees, citing concerns about potential “discrimination” against the male colleague.

This response left Ms Sewell feeling “abandoned by her employer” and “convinced the Respondent did not want her in the workplace”. The Deputy President later found that dnata’s handling of the complaint directly contributed to forcing Ms Sewell’s resignation.

How dnata's Investigation Went Wrong

Deputy President Beaumont identified multiple procedural failures that undermined dnata’s investigation from the outset.

The company failed to interview colleagues who witnessed Ms Sewell’s distress immediately after the incident occurred. These witnesses could have provided crucial corroborating evidence, but dnata overlooked this basic investigative step entirely.

dnata also took a flawed approach to conflicting testimony. Rather than conducting thorough fact findings, the company treated any differences between the two accounts as automatic grounds for dismissing the allegations. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how workplace investigations should evaluate competing versions of events.

The timing of communications created additional procedural unfairness. Ms Sewell repeatedly requested formal documentation of the investigation outcome from April 15 onwards yet didn’t receive written confirmation until April 28.

When the letter finally arrived, it contained vague language stating dnata was “unable to make a finding for some of the allegations”. This ambiguous wording stood in stark contrast to the clear, immediate written notification provided to the male employee that allegations were “not substantiated.”

Deputy President Beaumont found these investigation failures created an environment where Ms Sewell felt she had no choice but to resign. The decision highlights how poor investigation protocols can expose employers to substantial unfair dismissal claims, even when the original complaint doesn’t result in disciplinary action.

What This Decision Means for Australian Employers

Deputy President Beaumont’s ruling establishes three key legal principles that will reshape how Australian companies handle workplace investigations.

Equal Treatment is Now a Legal Requirement

The Commission explicitly criticised dnata for failing to “demonstrate equivalence in treatment” between Sewell and her male colleague. While the accused employee received immediate written confirmation that allegations were “not substantiated,” Sewell waited weeks for formal documentation and received only ambiguous language about the investigation outcomes.

This disparity in communication became central to the unfair dismissal finding. Employers can no longer provide different levels of service to complainants and respondents during investigation processes.

Conflicting Evidence Doesn’t Mean Case Closed

The decision challenges how employers evaluate witness testimony. Deputy President Beaumont stated: “There will often be circumstances where an alleged interaction occurs between two employees in the absence of a witness… That does not mean allegations are unable to be substantiated unless the evidence of those two employees align”.

This ruling means employers must conduct thorough fact findings rather than automatically dismissing complaints when accounts differ. Companies need to examine surrounding evidence, interview potential witnesses, and assess credibility rather than taking the simplistic approach of requiring perfect alignment between testimonies.

Investigation Delays Create Legal Risk

The Commission has consistently criticised prolonged investigation timelines. Companies must balance thoroughness with reasonable timeframes. Extended investigations without proper communication between the affected parties now carry significant legal risk.

The financial consequences are substantial with the $36,468 awarded to Sewell demonstrates that procedural failures.

Main Points

This landmark unfair dismissal case demonstrates how procedural failures in workplace investigations can result in substantial financial penalties and reshape industry standards.

• Equal treatment is legally required
  Employers must provide identical communication and procedural fairness to both complainants and accused parties during investigations, or risk costly unfair dismissal claims.
• Conflicting accounts don’t automatically invalidate complaints
  The FWC ruled that differing testimonies between two parties shouldn’t lead to automatic dismissal of allegations without thorough fact-finding.
• Investigation delays create legal liability
  Prolonged investigations without proper communication may constitute unfair treatment, with the Commission criticizing extended timelines as “procedurally disastrous.”
• Financial consequences are severe
  The $36,468 compensation awarded to dnata signals that organisations face substantial compensation costs when investigation procedures fail to meet legal standards.

This decision fundamentally changes how Australian employers must handle workplace complaints, emphasising that thorough, balanced, and timely investigations are now legal requirements rather than mere best practices.

What This Means for Your Workplace

The outcome of the dnata case delivers a powerful warning to Australian employers. Upholding procedural fairness in workplace investigations is now a legal mandate, not just a recommendation.

Thanks to the advocacy of Workclaims Australia, the Commission ruled that all parties involved in workplace complaints must be treated with equal respect, communication, and procedural fairness. Any deviation such as providing inconsistent updates or support to complainants versus the accused can foster a toxic work environment and lead to forced resignations.

Importantly, the Commission dismissed the notion that complaints should be disregarded simply because employees’ accounts differ. As Deputy President Beaumont clarified, it’s common for incidents to occur without witnesses, and the absence of aligned testimony does not render an allegation unsubstantiated. Employers are now required to thoroughly investigate all claims, considering every piece of relevant evidence and context, rather than taking the easy route of dismissing unresolved accounts.

The $36,468.39 compensation in this case, led by Workclaims Australia, highlights the financial risk for organisations that fail to meet legal investigation standards. Employers must ensure prompt, fair, and impartial investigations.