Dismissed for Giving Friend ‘Ludicrous’ Work From Home Rights

A retirement village manager who hired his friend and gave her work from home privileges has had his unfair dismissal claim rejected. The manager had granted WFH privileges despite his friend’s role being client facing. He had also allowed the woman to bring her often sick kids into the village.

In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work Commission case – Mr Vino Rodrigues v Anglican Community Services [2024].

Dismissed for Granting ‘Ludicrous’ Work From Home Arrangement

Vino Rodrigues began working for Anglican Community Services as an asset and facilities manager in May 2023. He primarily worked at the organisation’s facility in the Sydney suburb of Castle Hill. A few months after starting, he became the retirement living village manager for the organisation’s Woodbury village in Winston Hills.

This role saw Mr Rodrigues deal with residents on a daily basis and manage facilities like the common space, transport, gardening and activities. According to Anglican Community Services, Mr Rodrigues faced a “volatile” environment at the village, which was facing a number of issues.

The incumbent coordinator for the village had just left, and when the new one arrived, he told Mr Rodrigues that “you and I don’t see eye to eye.” This coordinator later decided not to speak to him and shortly after quit his job.

Hired Friend with Three Disabled Kids

In his unfair dismissal claim, Mr Rodrigues told the Fair Work Commission that many residents did not want him to attend their residence without a female colleague. So he sought to hire a new female coordinator, known only as Ms B, in February 2024. The duo had previously worked together in a division of Anglicare, the parent organisation of Anglican Community Services.

Ms B was a solo parent with four kids. Three of her kids suffered from an “incurable autoimmune disease” and required significant ongoing medical attention. To allow for their medical treatment, she needed to be home for two to three days per fortnight. Critical to this arrangement was the help Ms B got from her mother, who collected the kids from school.

However, shortly after she started at Anglican Community Services, Ms B’s mother left her home and was unable to pick up her kids anymore.

‘You intrigue me’: Duo had a ‘non-romantic friendship’

When assessing Mr Rodrigues’ unfair dismissal claim, the Fair Work Commission examined hundreds of texts and emails exchanged between him and Ms B. These showed they were in a “non-romantic relationship” prior to her taking the job. In one message, Mr Rodrigues said to Ms B:

“Hey. Oh wow – I’m so glad you said that – I would really, really, really like to have another chat over coffee. You intrigue me.”

When Ms B landed the job, Mr Rodrigues texted her that he was “kinda sad tho.” After she asked why, he said “I’ll be your Manager – won’t be able to send/receive txt’s at 9PM.” To this, Ms B said “Oh darn! That’s a shame but at least we can chat in person.”

Worker Allowed to Work From Home to Care For Kids

A critical consideration in Mr Rodrigues’ unfair dismissal claim was that he granted Ms B a work from home arrangement. This came just three days into her new role when Ms B told him that she needed to resign. This was because her mother was no longer able to take care of her kids. Mr Rodrigues decided to allow her to work from 9am to 2:30pm at the village premises. She could then work from home till 5pm.

Mr Rodrigues reasoned that this allowed Ms B to be in person to handle the “human element” of managing the village. Also, to do her admin work that was not location dependent. He told Anglican Community Services that he could manage the “in village presence” as he was often there from 7am till 5pm most days.

Mr Rodrigues said that this arrangement aligned with the principles of the not-for-profit, Christian organisation, which he “assumed” included “caring for staff.”

Ms B Afforded other Privileges

Another critical consideration of Mr Rodrigues’ unfair dismissal claim was that he often allowed Ms B to bring her kids in to work.

In the first few months of her employment, Ms B often asked if she could bring her child into the office. This was met with replies from Mr Rodrigues of “Bring him. It’s ok” and “More than welcome. You should know that btw.” She was also allowed to go home early in order to take care of her kids.

Mr Rodrigues told the Fair Work Commission that he was aware of Anglicare’s Children policy. This stated that children should only attend the workplace after permission is granted by the staff member’s manager. As he was Ms B’s manager, Mr Rodrigues granted her permission. He said he only granted permission in “rare” circumstances and “under controlled conditions.”

Ms B was also allowed to “take significant days of leave in circumstances where she had few leave entitlements,” Fair Work Commission records stated.

Ms B Rebuffed Romantic Overtures

The backdrop to Mr Rodrigues’ unfair dismissal claim was that he had attempted to become more than friends with Ms B. This was suggested by the texts and emails the duo had exchanged. In March 2024, Ms B had said to him that “I had fun hanging out with you and the kids. But, it made clear to me that I couldn’t and don’t think we could go past anything other than colleagues.”

She said that “I don’t need anything else to feel happy. I’ve had a few people ask over past 3 years and I always knew it was a no.” Ms B also said that “I truly value you as a friend and colleague.” She clarified that “I also thought that when you first asked about the movies it was a friend’s and I’m so sorry if I gave any other impression.”

‘You’ve got a mad crush on her’

In April 2024, Mr Rodrigues gave Ms B the day off for her birthday. He continued to allow her to bring her child to work, saying “You don’t need to ask. You know they’re welcome!!” Later that month, Mr Rodrigues texted her about an interaction he had with a colleague.

“So he says to me: ‘you’ve got a mad crush on her’, and i go: “what the f&*, why do you say that?” – and he says: ‘because the way you talk to her. it’s not like how you would speak to someone you work with.’ ….. geeez … am i that obvious? or is it because he knows me best. [Emoticon]”

The next day, Mr Rodrigues took Ms B and her four kids to an appointment, then to a fast-food restaurant. They subsequently all went to his home.

Read More: 50 Reasons to be Fairly Sacked

Complaints About Sick Kids Led to Investigation

In April 2024, Anglican Community Services received ten complaints from village residents. These mainly referred to the presence of children, absent from school due to illness. Shortly thereafter, Mr Rodrigues was suspended from all duties and placed under investigation.

A few weeks later, the organisation formally levelled several allegations against him. This included a failure to declare a conflict of interest arising out of his friendship with Ms B. The organisation also accused him of failing to partake in a fair recruitment process when hiring her.

Anglican Community Services said that Mr Rodrigues had made the workplace “psychologically unsafe for Ms B.” This was because he had “continued to pursue a ‘personal friendship’” with her. As he was her manager, the organisation claimed that “Ms B did not feel comfortable declining your approaches towards her.”

The organisation then laid out the several occasions when Mr Rodrigues had made approaches to her. This included asking her to watch the movie Ghostbusters with her children on a weekend. He had also told her that he “really liked her” while at work. He had also allegedly said to her “when I saw you with resident J for the first time, something clicked.”

Violated Child Safety Policy

Anglican Community Services said that Mr Rodrigues had “failed to demonstrate appropriate professional boundaries with Children and Young People.” It outlined several instances of this, including asking Ms B’s oldest child to take out garbage and deliver mail at the village.

The organisation also alleged Mr Rodrigues had violated its “Child Safe Child-Friendly Organisation Policy.” This was because he failed to consider the risks of having children at the village and did not provide supervision for them.

Violated Work From Home Policy

Critical to this unfair dismissal case was Anglican Community Services’ allegation that Mr Rodrigues had violated its work from home policy. This was because he allowed Ms B to change her work hours from 8am – 4pm to 9 am – 2:30 pm. It said that this “reduced her time on site by two and a half hours per day.” The organisation noted that this reduction in onsite hours took place despite “Ms B’s role involved interacting directly with residents of Woodberry Village.”

Mr Rodrigues was accused of not attaining approval from the HR department and his manager for Ms B’s work from home arrangement. He had also did not “formalise the change in work hours through a contract change form.” In addition, he did not tell Ms B in writing what the duration of the flexible working arrangement would be.

Worker was Dismissed For Serious Misconduct

On 15 May 2024, Mr Rodrigues was given his marching orders by Anglican Community Services. In his termination letter, the organisation said “of particular concern to us was the disregard you showed for the investigation.” It specifically referenced that Mr Rodrigues had said he found the process “entertaining.” He subsequently filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission.

Fair Work Slammed ‘ludicrous’ Work From Home Arrangement

At Mr Rodrigues’ unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission accepted that Ms B’s role was “client facing” and that she worked as a “pair” with Mr Rodrigues. It noted the “ludicrous nature of the work from home arrangement afforded to Ms B.”

When questioned about the arrangement, Mr Rodrigues claimed that he had given Ms B key performance indicators (KPIs). He said that these required her to visit every resident at the village before she went home to work each day. However, the Fair Work Commission noted to him that he did not mention KPIs in the letter that outlined Ms B’s work from home arrangement. Mr Rodrigues said that she was verbally told about the KPIs.

The Commission outlined the inconsistency in his statements. Mr Rodrigues had claimed that it was important that he and Ms B work as a “pair.” This was because he needed a female coordinator to visit female residents. This need, the Commission noted, seemed to be contradicted by his allowance of her not to be at the village from 2:30pm each day.

WFH Arrangement Was ‘Act of Favouritism’

The Fair Work Commission noted that Ms B’s work from home arrangement was “entirely inconsistent with her role and duties.” It said that it was an “act of favouritism” that “he knew was inconsistent” with the nature of her role. The Commission said that the arrangement was “remarkable” and “inexplicable” as it was put in place one day into Ms B’s employment.

It also highlighted that the work from home arrangement began two days before Ms B had told Mr Rodrigues that she had to resign due to issues with taking care of her kids. The Commission therefore concluded that the arrangement “could not have arisen from actual issues, but rather perceived issues.”

Slammed for Not Disclosing Friendship

The Fair Work Commission called out Mr Rodrigues for having “actively promoted” Ms B during the recruitment process. And for doing so “without having disclosed their friendship.” It acknowledged that theirs was not a romantic relationship, but that this was Mr Rodrigues’ aim.

The Commission also said Ms B was not without fault as “there did not appear to be any significant ‘push back’” from her to Mr Rodrigues’ overtures. It said that the duo’s social dynamic needed to be considered when assessing the “concessions” Ms B was afforded.

Read More: Workplace Investigations: What are my Rights as an Employee?

Unfair dismissal Claimed Rejected

The Fair Work Commission took a hard line on Mr Rodrigues’ allowing Ms B to bring her kids to the village. It said this was a “serious breach of policy.” It noted this was particularly so as “elderly persons are subject to greater risks from exposure to illnesses.”

The Commission found that Mr Rodrigues’ actions were “wilful [and] deliberate” and that they amounted to serious misconduct. His unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.

Read More: Difference Between Unfair Dismissal and Wrongful Dismissal

Have You Been uUnfairly Dismissed?

If you feel that your employer did not have a valid reason to dismiss you, or denied you procedural fairness, give us a call. We can help you lodge an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission. Our team can assist in making the best case so you can get the compensation you deserve.

Call us today for a private and complimentary conversation on 1300 766 700 or contact us here for more information.