Are Employers Overreacting in this Woke Era?

In the last few years, the ideas of Wokism have crept into workplaces and even into Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal proceedings. From safe spaces and microaggressions, to toxic masculinity and unconscious bias, the language of Woke has become familiar to most people.

On one hand, this has been good for Australian workplaces – with more emphasis now placed on issues like bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment. But like many societal movements, particularly those driven by emotions, at some point we start to see things being taken too far.

Fair Work said term ‘Unsafe’ workplace is being ‘Appropriated’

One way Wokism has negatively influenced workplaces is that some employers have redefined the term “unsafe” – significantly broadening the definition.

Thirty, even twenty years ago, an unsafe environment meant, for instance, there was a live power line in the middle of the workplace, or some other imminent danger. These days, it seems if an employee merely looks at another the wrong way, this could conceivably pose a grave risk to everyone’s health and safety.

These are, of course, exaggerations. But they point to a general truth about the way employers now think and act.

In a recent unfair dismissal ruling, the Fair Work Commission highlighted what it sees as the “appropriation of the word ‘unsafe’ by parties in the employment context.” It said that the use of the term “can at times stretch beyond scenarios which can be objectively regarded as dangerous.”

Worker Dismissed for Raising Voice, Not Giving Colleague an Office

These words from the Fair Work Commision came at a hearing for a worker who was summarily dismissed for creating a “serious risk to the health and safety of others.” How did she do this? In the opinion of her employer, by raising her voice during an argument with a colleague, amongst other minor indiscretions.

Another reason she was fired was because she made her team member sit in an open plan desk, instead of an office. She had also told a colleague that another member of the team had “stuffed up” a report.

Perhaps raising your voice in the workplace or saying someone “stuffed up” is impolite and should be reprimanded. But is it really a fireable offense? Are employers, bosses, managers and supervisors becoming too sensitive? Are we as a society too focused on people’s feelings, and have lost common sense?

Read More: How to Lodge an Unfair Dismissal Claim

This next story seems to suggest many employers, and Western governments, have…

Public Workers Told Eye Rolling Could be Racist or Sexist

In January 2025, an investigation by The Times reported that employees at several UK government departments were warned not to partake in seemingly innocent gestures or face the risk of dismissal. During training, the employees were told that “microaggressions” toward colleagues could amount to sexual or racial discrimination.

According to the investigation, since 2021 the UK government has spent more than £160,000 (around AU$315,000) for external consultancies to deliver microaggression training for civil service employees.

So, what is a microaggression exactly? The training defined it to employees as “tiny, often unconscious gestures, facial expressions, postures, words, and tone of voice which can influence how included (or not included) the people around us feel.”

You may be shaking your head after reading this definition. It’s likely because you’ve realised it’s so broad as to infer that virtually any and all human movement, whether conscious or not, that makes someone feel they are somewhere on the spectrum of feeling ‘not included,’ is verboten. At least in the eyes of DEI consultants.

Workers Taught Looking at Phone Bad, Nodding Head Good

The investigation revealed that most government workers who received the training had a negative opinion of it. Among the microaggressions they learned about were rolling one’s eyes or looking at a phone while someone is speaking. Questioning a colleague’s professional experience was also discouraged. Government employees were also warned against using the term “black spot” as it can carry racist undertones.

Instead of doing these things, government employees were told that they could foster “a culture of transparency” by behaving in a way that promotes a sense of belonging. One way to do this, they were told, is to nod affirmatively during conversations with colleagues. Remember, this was training for civil servants and not kindergarteners.

Read More: What to Do When You Have Been Given a Warning at Work

UK University Staff Told Not To Say ‘The Most Qualified Person Should Get the Job’

Another example of Wokism taking centre stage at top institutions is this story which made headlines in February 2024. Various media outlets reported that some of the UK’s leading universities have provided staff and students with guidance and training on microaggressions. This came to light due to the Committee for Academic Freedom, which is a group of academics concerned about free speech in universities.

The University of Glasgow and the engineering department of the Imperial College London told staff and students that saying “the most qualified person should get the job” is a microaggression. The universities explained that the expression is effectively the same as saying “that race does not play a role in life successes.”

Another example of a microaggression, the University of Glasgow insisted, was saying “everyone can succeed if they work hard enough.” The university told its staff that saying this could imply that an individual only secured a role to fill a quota. It said that it could imply that an individual is unable to make a valuable contribution.

Australian Worker Dismissed for Creating ‘Unsafe’ Environment

With top institutions and workplaces placing such emphasis on microaggressions and the feelings of employees, we are now seeing workers dismissed for reasons that prior to Wokism would have warranted a mere reprimand.

One recent example of this is the Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal case Heidi Black v Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute [2024]. Heidi Black began working for not-for-profit Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute as a senior HR advisor in November 2016. She was promoted to general manager of HR and payroll in December 2022.

In August 2023, Mrs Black was allowed to hire a HR operations manager to help with her “extremely high” workload.  Despite getting help, she told the Fair Work Commission that she experienced “symptoms of burnout due to working 50-60 hours per week.” She said that this prompted her to go on medication.

GM Said Emotional State was Charged by Israel-Palestine Conflict

On 11 October 2023, Mrs Black had a disagreement with a HR coordinator about training for a software platform. The HR coordinator told the Fair Work Commission that Mrs Black became “very upset and then angry.” She said that Mrs Black accused her of “being rude and verbally attacking her.”

Mrs Black told the Fair Work Commission that she drew upon recent “toxic behaviour training” she had recently taken at Baker Heart. Based on the training, she suggested to the coordinator that they resolve the disagreement when another manager was present. She claimed that the coordinator disregarded this comment and “continued making complaints” about her to others in the organisation.

Mrs Black said she “repeatedly” asked the coordinator to leave the matter until the next day. Mrs Black said that she came into the office the next day “emotional.” She claimed that this was due to her “general exhaustion” and “anxiety.” She also claimed her state was due to “the beginning of the Israel-Palestine conflict.” The attacks on Israel by Hamas took place a few days earlier on 7 October 2024.

Perhaps it is fair to say that blaming your exhaustion and anxiety on events a world away is a bit over the top. But it was this comment that Mrs Black’s employer later weaponised against her at her unfair dismissal hearing.

Took Extended Leave

Mrs Black subsequently took four months leave, having attained medical certificates to do so. During this absence, Mrs Black said that she was diagnosed with “depression, anxiety and burnout.” She said she was “extremely exhausted” and suffered from “low mood, self-blame and heightened anxiety.”

In February 2024, Mrs Black had an independent medical examination. The doctor said that she “was not nearly as ‘well’ as she appeared.” He recommended that Mrs Black not work more hours than she was contracted for. A few weeks later, a senior manager at Baker Heart called her, saying she could return to work. However, the manager also said that a complaint had been made against her, which “caused [Mrs Black] significant anxiety.”

Faced Allegations Upon Return

When she returned to work, Mrs Black was given a letter outlining several allegations made against her. This included that she had “engaged in unreasonable and inappropriate workplace behaviour” towards the HR operations manager and the HR team. Baker Heart said that it was conducting an investigation into the allegations, using an external investigator.

Mrs Black was told that she would now report to a different senior manager. She was also told that the payroll team would no longer report to her.

Was Often ‘in Tears and in a Highly Emotional State’

Mrs Black was interviewed by the external investigator, who eventually concluded that on “the balance of probabilities” she had engaged in several instances of “unreasonable behaviour.” This included:

• Forcing a member of the HR team, Annette, to sit in an open plan desk, with her back to the HR team. It was alleged Mrs Black had denied this team member an office, while other team members were afforded the luxury.
• Telling the HR team that Annette had “stuffed up the Budget Report.”
• That Mrs Black was “in tears and in a highly emotional state on a regular basis.” Baker Heart alleged that this caused staff to “feel they are ‘walking on eggshells’” around her, “creating an unsafe/unhealthy environment.”

 

• Telling Annette to dismiss staff members with “unreasonable cause” by saying “you need to get rid of Raed, Priya and Danni.”
• Behaving in an “unprofessional and unreasonable manner towards Danni.” Baker Heart alleged that Mrs Black said to Danni words to the effect of “you always ask questions I cannot answer.” The organisation claimed that Mrs Black then “became angry and aggressive” when Danni tried to defend herself.

Instantly Dismissed for Serious Misconduct

In March 2024, Baker Heart told Mrs Black that she had “engaged in unreasonable conduct” towards the HR operations manager and the wider HR team. This, it said, breached Baker Heart’s bullying and harassment policy. It was also a “serious breach” of her obligations to the organisation as she failed to comply with lawful directives.

Baker Heart told Mrs Black that her actions caused “serious risk to the health and safety of others.” It also said it caused “significant embarrassment and damage” to the organisation. Baker Heart said that all this amounted to serious misconduct.

The organisation summarily dismissed Mrs Black in early April 2024. She subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission.

Worker Admitted to ‘Grumbling’ in Office

Mrs Black argued to the Fair Work Commission that there was no valid reason for her dismissal. She said that her alleged misconduct did not happen, and if it did, it was not serious enough to warrant termination. Mrs Black did, however, admit that “perhaps there was an opportunity” for her to improve her approach to managing staff.

She also acknowledged her “grumbling” in the office as a means of coping with stress. However, Mrs Black denied claims of publicly criticising colleagues or instructing anyone to terminate employees.

Employer Attacked Worker’s Character

Baker Heart, meanwhile, said that the arguments Mrs Black put forward in her unfair dismissal claim were contradictory and should be viewed “with caution.” The organisation said she had a “lack of insight and self-awareness into her own behaviour.”

The organisation said Mrs Black went “so far as to blame her involvement in the 11 October 2023 incident on the ‘Israel/Palestine war.’” Baker Heart said this was a “good example” of the lengths she would go to to deny her own fault in a matter.

Fair Work Commission Slammed Employer’s Arguments

At Mrs Black’s unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission considered the incident on 11 October. It said that by raising her voice she “fell short of the level of professionalism should reasonably be expected.” The Commission also accepted that Mrs Black had told staff that the operations manager had “stuffed up.”

However, the Fair Work Commission concluded that this incident only got worse due to the coordinator’s actions. Namely, because she continued arguing with Mrs Black “in contravention of [Mrs Black’s] lawful and reasonable direction. It was noted that the coordinator also “raised her voice.” The Commission also dismissed the accusation that Mrs Black had said she would fire staff without reason.

Fair Work Called Out Employer’s ‘Slur’

The Fair Work Commission also took issue with Baker Heart’s take on Mrs Black citing the Israel-Palestine conflict as the reason for her behaviour. It said that the organisation tried to infer that she had “opportunistically prepared to stretch the bounds of credibility” by citing the conflict as the reason for her behaviour.

The Commission said that “at best” this inference was misguided, and “[a]t worst, it is nothing more than a slur on [Mrs Black’s] character.”

Misused the Term ‘Unsafe’

Baker Heart claimed the Mrs Black had created an “unsafe/unhealthy” work environment. The Fair Work Commission acknowledged she was occasionally “uncomfortable and awkward.” But it made the point of saying that her conduct did not meet the threshold of being “objectively dangerous.” He noted the term “unsafe” was being stretched beyond its traditional meaning in this context.

Fair Work Slammed Employer for Dismissal Notification in Payslip

The Fair Work Commission noted that Mrs Black had learned of her termination through a payslip detailing termination payments rather than formal notification. It criticised the organisation for its “deleterious processes” – not only for the payslip bungle but also in terms of managing her employment generally.

The Commission said that Baker Heart had not adequately considered Mrs Black’s “unblemished record over seven years” when deciding to sack her. It noted she was “in need of extra resources” after being promoted three times.

It labelled the firing as a “disproportionate response.” The more appropriate response, the Commission said, would have involved a “review, a caution, some performance management and some coaching.”

The Fair Work Commission therefore ruled that Mrs Black had been unfairly dismissed. It said a directions hearing will be held to determine appropriate compensation.

Read More: Unfair Dismissal Claim Successful

Have you Been Unfairly Dismissed?

Make sure you act fast, as you only have 21 days from the date of your dismissal to make a claim. Our team can help you make the best argument against your employer to the Fair Work Commission.

Why trust us? Because we’ve helped over 16,000 Australian workers take action through the Commission. We know how the Fair Work system works – and we can help you use it to address cases of unfair dismissal.

With us, you can rest assured with our no win, no fee service and our track record helping workers for over 30 years. Call us today for a private and complimentary conversation on 1300 766 700 or contact us here for more information.