Court Condemns “Cold-hearted” HR Manager in Landmark Unfair Dismissal Case Against Hisense

Published by 1800ADVOCATES — Your Voice in Workplace Justice

In a stinging rebuke of employer misconduct, the Federal Circuit and Family Court has ruled that Hisense Australia Pty Ltd unlawfully dismissed a long-serving employee after he pursued unpaid wages and questioned company practices.

The judgment, delivered by Judge Catherine Symons in Naskovski v Hisense Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 943, exposes systemic failures in Hisense’s internal processes and condemns the company’s HR manager for engaging in a campaign of intimidation and procedural unfairness that culminated in the worker’s dismissal.

The case offers a critical precedent on the protections afforded to employees under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), particularly in relation to adverse action, misclassification, and retaliatory HR conduct.

The Employee’s Fight for Fair Pay

Mr Naskovski, a customer service team coach, had worked at Hisense for several years when he began raising concerns that he was being underpaid. In 2020, following persistent complaints, he received a partial adjustment of $12,407. However, Mr Naskovski continued seeking full backpay and access to his employment records—rights protected under workplace law.

His inquiries, made professionally and lawfully, placed him at odds with Hisense’s HR department. According to the Court, Hisense’s HR manager soon escalated matters, initiating what Judge Symons described as a "catalogue" of adverse and dismissive actions toward the employee.

From Employee to Target: A Pattern of Retaliation

By late 2020, Mr Naskovski had been promoted to team leader—a move soon overshadowed by the dismissal of the supervisor who offered him the role. The company later refused to honour the promotion, reigniting Mr Naskovski’s concerns about entitlements.

Instead of resolving the issues in good faith, the HR manager began demanding that Mr Naskovski complete new employee forms and provide proof of legal residency—despite the fact that he was born in Australia and had been employed by the company for years.

This culminated in an email issued while he was on sick leave, giving him six days to provide his birth certificate or risk termination.

Internal Fraud Scandal and Suspicious Timing

On the same day the HR manager issued her ultimatum, Hisense globally distributed an internal newsletter about a $3.7 million fraud—part of which involved its Australian operations. The newsletter was accessible only through the company’s internal system.

Shortly after, Mr Naskovski forwarded the fraud newsletter and the HR manager’s emails to his personal account. The next day, he found himself locked out of his work systems. Three days later, he received notice of a disciplinary meeting to answer allegations of leaking confidential company information.

Despite denying any wrongdoing and stating that he did not have access to the confidential links referenced in media reports, the company refused to provide evidence of the alleged leak or update him on its investigation.

Procedural Fairness Denied

When Mr Naskovski asked to use annual leave after exhausting his sick leave due to ongoing health concerns, the HR manager denied the request, citing the business's “busy season.”

In January 2022, the HR manager scheduled an “informal welfare meeting,” which Mr Naskovski—still unwell—requested to handle in writing. Instead, the HR manager used his non-attendance as a pretext for booking a medical assessment without his consent.

Shortly thereafter, Hisense dismissed him for “refusing” to attend the meeting and medical appointment.

Court Slams HR Conduct and Employer Failures

In her detailed judgment, Judge Symons found that Hisense had breached section 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 by taking adverse action against Mr Naskovski for exercising his workplace rights.

She said the HR manager’s conduct displayed “a high-handed, dismissive and at times retaliatory approach,” and condemned Hisense for failing to provide a single document relating to its investigation or decision-making process.

“There was a profound disregard for precision and documentation,” Judge Symons observed, noting that nearly all the documentary evidence relied upon was produced by Mr Naskovski himself.

“The publication of the [fraud] article did not disrupt the ongoing retaliation… It created the opportunity to put the blowtorch to him.”

She further criticised the HR manager for rejecting the annual leave request during a period of illness, calling the decision “cold-hearted” and “antithetical to contemporary HR practices.”

Court Condemns “Cold-hearted” HR Manager in Landmark Unfair Dismissal Case Against Hisense

The Legal Outcome

The Court found that Hisense:

• Engaged in adverse action contrary to the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act;

• Misclassified Mr Naskovski’s role, resulting in systemic underpayments;

• Breached record-keeping obligations;

• Denied procedural fairness in a retaliatory dismissal process.

Judge Symons ordered the parties to confer regarding underpayments before determining final compensation and penalties.

Implications for Workers and Employers

This case is a wake-up call for employers who treat employee complaints as nuisances. The Fair Work Commission and the Courts have made it abundantly clear: workers are entitled to raise complaints, access their records, and assert their workplace rights without fear of reprisal.

For workers, Naskovski is a reminder of the power of persistence and documentation. Mr Naskovski’s careful record-keeping played a pivotal role in discrediting Hisense’s narrative.

For employers, the case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness, maintaining accurate records, and respecting the rights of employees—even when those rights are inconvenient.

1800ADVOCATES: Protecting Workers from Retaliation

At 1800ADVOCATES, we believe no worker should be punished for demanding fair pay, lawful treatment, or access to their own records. We specialise in general protections claims, unfair dismissal, and wage recovery matters. If your employer has turned against you for exercising your rights, you are not alone.

📞 Call 1800ADVOCATES or visit www.1800advocates.au for free and confidential guidance.