[2025] FWC 2675
Citation: [2025] FWC 2675
What happened
the Applicant, a senior psychologist, was dismissed from Very Helpful Chats Pty Ltd (VHC), a telehealth psychology practice, on May 30, 2025. She filed an unfair dismissal claim. The dismissal reason was alleged serious misconduct, including making false statements about a supervisee’s performance, questioning a staff member’s LGBTQIA+ identity, and sending inappropriate messages to administrative staff. VHC operates entirely online, with employees working remotely and interactions often recorded via transcription software like 'Tactiq'. The dispute involved differing accounts of conversations and interpretations of transcripts, with the Applicant claiming some interactions weren't recorded or misrepresented.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant’s dismissal was unfair. While VHC alleged serious misconduct, the Commission considered the evidence, including transcripts and witness testimony. The Commission acknowledged discrepancies in accounts and the challenges of interpreting recorded interactions. The Commission ordered compensation for the Applicant, but deemed reinstatement inappropriate. The exact amount of compensation is not specified in the provided text.
What it means for employers
Employers using online platforms and recording interactions should be mindful of how this data is interpreted and presented in disciplinary processes. Ensure transparency with employees regarding recording practices and provide opportunities for employees to clarify their actions. Accurately representing employee identities and respecting diversity is crucial, and assumptions about personal characteristics can have serious consequences.
What it means for employees
Employees should document interactions and maintain records to support their accounts in workplace disputes. If facing disciplinary action based on recorded interactions, seek clarification and an opportunity to explain your perspective. Understand your rights regarding unfair dismissal and seek legal advice if necessary.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc2675.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections