A Sydney IT firm has been ordered to pay an employee over $28,000 in legal costs for mounting an “embarrassing” and “vexatious” defence against his unfair dismissal claim. This was on top of the over $38,000 it was forced to pay the employee for unfairly sacking him.
The employee had been falsely accused by the company and its HR consultant of acting belligerently, stealing and sending a malware attack. This unfair dismissal case – James Francis Camenzuli v Companion Systems Pty Limited [2024] – is another reminder that HR reps are often not your friend (It’s a familiar topic on the blog).
Often, HR is there to protect the interests of the employer, not employees. We’ve regularly seen Fair Work Commission cases where HR reps have lied, manipulated and violated rights in order to get employees dismissed.
Dodgy HR rep & false accusations earn worker $38K unfair dismissal payout
James Camenzuli began working for Sydney-based IT company Companion Systems around 2011. He was the first cousin, once removed, of the company’s owner. In July 2023, the company instructed an external consultant, Mr. Gabriel Alkan of Specialist HR, to begin consultation with Mr. Camenzuli regarding a potential redundancy.
This meeting, which took place at a local cafe and presented Mr. Camenzuli with an executed deed that day, was described by the Fair Work Commission as “callous and unprofessional.”
Mr. Camenzuli offered a pay reduction to stay with the business. But Mr. Alkan didn’t communicate this offer to senior management.
Following the meeting, Mr. Camenzuli’s access to his employer’s systems was disabled. However, he still had sensitive personal data on there that he wanted to delete. This included data about bank accounts, photos, family issues and information about debts.
Unfairly dismissed for ‘theft’
Mr. Camenzuli attempted to contact Companion Systems’ senior management to discuss the redundancy and the process of removing personal data from his devices. The Commission noted that senior management “rebuffed” these attempts, directing him to deal exclusively with Mr. Alkan.
On 8 June 2023, Mr. Camenzuli reset his company-issued laptop to factory settings in order to delete his personal data. The next day, he returned the laptop but requested more time to transfer data from his work-issued phone. Mr. Alkan refused the extension and informed Mr. Camenzuli that his employment was terminated immediately. He said the reason was failure to return the property, which could be “considered theft.”
Mr. Camenzuli subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission.
HR rep falsely accused worker of ‘belligerent behaviour’
In its response to the unfair dismissal claim, Companion Systems and Mr. Alkan told the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Camenzuli was “increasingly unstable.” It said that he was engaging “in misconduct and harassing staff” and in an “escalating course of serious misconduct.” They also said Mr. Camenzuli exhibited a “clear pattern of belligerent behaviour.” In particular, because of his refusal to communicate solely with Mr. Alkan. These claims, however, weren’t included in Mr. Carmenzuli’s termination later sent to him on 15 June 2023.
Falsey accused of sending malware
Companion Systems argued the dismissal was initially a genuine redundancy which converted to a summary dismissal due to the employee’s conduct. It claimed that Mr. Camenzuli had failed to return a company mobile phone by a specified deadline and had wiped all data from a company laptop before its return. The company claimed that his factory reset of the laptop and phone caused valuable company data to be “irreparably lost.”
Companion Systems and Mr. Alkan also alleged that Mr. Carmenzuli sent them “malware” on 14 June 2023, following his dismissal. The company claimed this act further justified his summary termination. This claim was reflected in a termination letter sent by Mr. Alkan to Mr. Camenzuli on 15 June 2023.
Worker refuted all allegations
Mr. Camenzuli told the Fair Work Commission that his dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. He claimed it was a personal decision by the Companion Systems’ owner masked by a procedural facade. He also argued that the company made unreasonable demands.
He maintained that he had been compliant with directions from the company to return devices. And he challenged the malware claim, arguing that it was merely a “quarantine notification” incorrectly assumed by management to be a virus. He claimed this was caused by an Australia post receipt attached to an email. The email was about the mail package he sent the company to return the phone. Mr. Camenzuli also denied the claims of harassing and unstable conduct. He noted that his communications were “courteous and more gracious” than the conduct of Companion Systems.
Fair Work slammed employer for ‘ridiculous’ malware accusation
The Fair Work Commission heard Mr. Carmenzuli’s unfair dismissal claim in May 2024. It found that the redundancy proposal was a “sham” and that Companion Systems’ owner wanted to remove Mr. Camenzuli “due to family disputations.”
The Commission called the company and Mr. Alkan out for falsely accusing Mr. Carmenzuli of sending malware. It regarded the accusation as “incredulous and ridiculous.” The Commission noted that a false identification of malware was made due to the Australia Post receipt attached to Mr. Carmenzuli’s email.
Fair Work called out clueless HR rep
The Fair Work Commission concluded that Mr. Camenzuli was not engaging in harassing and unstable conduct. It said that the demand to return the phone by 12:00 pm on 9 June 2023 was not a lawful and reasonable instruction. The Commission noted that Mr. Alkan gave “combative evidence” and only appeared to learn in the witness box that the employee had, in fact, posted the phone by the deadline.
The Commission also ruled that Mr. Camenzuli “acted in no way maliciously” or with wilful intent to cause harm by resetting the laptop. It said that he was “entitled” to protect his personal interests.
Won huge unfair dismissal payout
The Fair Work Commission noted significant procedural failures, finding Mr. Camenzuli was not given an opportunity to respond to all of the reasons for the dismissal. He was also not fully notified of the harassing and unstable conduct allegation. The Commission specifically called out Mr. Alkan for his “astonishingly poor advice” to Companion Systems, which led to the procedural failures.
Given these findings and concluding that reinstatement wouldn’t be appropriate, the Fair Work Commission ordered Companion Systems to pay Mr. Carmenzuli $38,436 in compensation. This was for lost wages and superannuation.
In a post script to the judgement, the Commission condemned “in the strongest possible terms ” Mr. Alkan and a colleague for contacting Mr. Camenzuli’s new employer to conduct a reference check. They had lied to his employer by saying Mr. Camenzuli’s had provided permission for a reference check.
Companion Systems ordered to pay over $28K in costs for ‘vexatious’ unfair dismissal defence
This unfair dismissal case did not end there, however. In April 2024, Mr. Carmenzuli lodged an application for costs with the Fair Work Commission against Companion Systems (James Francis Camenzuli v Companion Systems Pty Limited [2025]). He argued that the company’s defence was conducted in an “unreasonable” and “vexatious” manner, causing him to incur unnecessary costs.
Specifically, he alleged that Companion Systems presented two “mutually inconsistent” grounds for resisting his unfair dismissal application. Also, that the company had “bizarrely” insisted he had not been terminated until 14 June 2023, and then terminated again.
Called out employer for ‘embarassing’ and ‘false’ claims
Mr. Camenzuli said the allegations against him were “fictitious” and “engineered” to cause him “as much anguish as possible.” He branded Companion Systems’ defence as “embarrassing” and relying on character assassinations. He highlighted the company’s “baseless” assertions that he had engaged in theft as well as harassing and unstable conduct. Mr. Carmenzuli also noted that he was falsely accused of a malicious malware attack despite “overwhelming” evidence to the contrary.
Finally, he highlighted that Companion Systems and Mr. Alkan had contacted his new employer under a “false and fraudulent pretence.” Mr. Camenzuli drew attention to the fact that he had put Companion Systems on notice during settlement negotiations in late 2023. He told the company that a costs application would be made due to it mounting a defence that was “vexatious and without reasonable cause.”
Employer doubled down on its position
In response, Companion Systems argued to the Fair Work Commission that any confusion regarding Mr. Carmenzuli’s dismissal date was due to its witnesses not being lawyers. The company maintained that Mr. Camenzuli’s action of deleting data from the laptop and the slight delay in returning the mobile phone were “reasonably” argued as serious misconduct. Companion Systems also sought to limit the potential compensation figure in a settlement offer, asserting an incorrect maximum amount the Commission could award.
Fair Work said defence aimed to ‘harass or embarrass’
In July 2025, the Fair Work Commission heard the application to award costs. It noted that the Fair Work Act 2009 stipulates that disputing parties bear their own costs, with costs being awarded only in “rare and exceptional” circumstances. However, it was satisfied that Companion Systems responded to Mr. Carmenzuli’s unfair dismissal application vexatiously and without reasonable cause.
The Commission accepted that the predominant purpose in responding as it did was to “harass or embarrass” Mr. Camenzuli or get him to withdraw his application. A key basis for this finding was the persistence of the malware allegation. Companion Systems’ general manager and Mr. Alkan “persisted” in giving evidence that it was malware. This was despite Mr. Camenzuli providing evidence that the email attachment incorrectly flagged as malware was an Australia Post tracking receipt.
The Commission branded this conduct as “appalling.” It noted that no one at Companion Systems considered the Australia Post receipt until it was discussed during the unfair dismissal hearing.
Dodgy HR rep slammed for embellishing reasons for dismissal
The Fair Work Commission was also satisfied that Companion Systems’ defence had no reasonable prospect of success. It noted that the reasons for termination were embellished by Mr. Alkan with false claims of misconduct and harassment. It also suggested that because Mr. Alkan was involved in the dismissal and simultaneously advising Companion Systems, he could not “objectively advise” the company of its “failings.”
Awarded over $28K in legal costs
Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission was satisfied that Companion Systems unreasonably caused costs to be incurred by Mr. Carmenzuli. As it had done in the initial hearing, the Commission highlighted the company’s and Mr. Alkan’s “astonishing” conduct in attempting to contact Mr. Camenzuli’s new employer. It said that this was done under a “false and fraudulent pretence.”
Companion Systems was ordered to pay Mr. Carmenzuli $28,734 to cover his legal costs for his unfair dismissal claim. This is in addition to the $38,436 in compensation he was previously paid for the successful claim.
Read more: Dismissal Unfair as Employer Acted as ‘Judge, Jury and Executioner’
Have you been unfairly dismissed?
Workplace issues can be stressful, but you don’t have to face them alone. A Whole New Approach has been helping Australian workers for over 30 years with unfair dismissal, bullying, harassment, discrimination, redundancies and other employment disputes. We’ve handled thousands of cases and know how to get real results for employees who’ve been treated unfairly.
Our experienced team will guide you through every step, from understanding your rights to lodging a claim and negotiating a fair outcome. We’re not lawyers—we’re workplace representatives who care. Contact us today at 1300 766 700 for free, confidential advice and stand up for your rights today.
