An engineer who was sacked over posting ‘extremely insulting’ messages about his boss in a WhatsApp group has won $15,345 after the Fair Work Commission found he had been unfairly dismissed.
Tyler Monaghan was employed as a Snowy Hydro 2.0 project engineer for construction company Endacom from June 2022 until November 2025.
He had provided eight weeks’ notice to resign from his role in October 2025 but was summarily terminated after Endacom viewed messages he had posted in a group chat.
Mr Monaghan filed an unfair dismissal claim after he was sacked, and Fair Work Commissioner Stephen Crawford agreed in a decision published on Tuesday.
The commission noted Mr Monaghan’s texts in a WhatsApp group of nine colleagues were discovered by management after they saw the messages on another worker’s computer and took a photo.
‘The evidence does not suggest management had a legitimate reason to be reading the messages on their computer,’ Commissioner Crawford said.
‘This was not a case where Mr Monaghan openly abused (his direct manager) at a meeting or work event.
‘Mr Monaghan was exchanging messages in a chat group with engineer co-workers and friends that were never intended to be viewed by (the manager) or any Endacom managers.’
Engineer Tyler Monaghan was sacked over posting ‘extremely insulting’ messages about his boss in a WhatsApp group has been awarded $15,345 after winning an unfair dismissal case
He had provided eight weeks’ notice to resign from his role in October 2025 but was summarily terminated after Endacom viewed messages he had posted in a group chat
Mr Monaghan’s comments, which were not revealed in the decision, were described by Commissioner Crawford as ‘extremely insulting’ and in breach of his contractual obligations.
‘I find Mr Monaghan breached the obligations in his employment contract via posting messages on the engineers’ WhatsApp group… which were extremely insulting towards his direct manager,’ he said.
‘Although Mr Monaghan was not at work when he sent the messages, some of the recipients were at work and all the participants in the group were employees of Endacom.
‘The chat was used to share work and personal information. In the circumstances, I consider Mr Monaghan’s conduct was sufficiently connected to his employment to constitute a breach of his employment contract.’
Commissioner Crawford also noted Mr Monaghan breached the obligation of his contract not to encourage any employee of Endacom to leave their employment.
But he added he did not consider it ‘remotely likely’ to trigger resignations among the nine other colleagues.
‘It appears the primary trigger for the numerous resignations was that the engineers had concerns about their working conditions, which they had raised with Endacom, and the concerns had not been addressed,’ he said.
Ultimately, the commissioner found Endacom’s valid reason for dismissal was outweighed by unfairness in the dismissal process.
Monaghan (pictured) was found to have been harshly dismissed despite the commission finding his messages breached his obligations in his employment contract
‘Monaghan was not provided with an opportunity to express remorse for the messages and to offer any context or explanation,’ Commissioner Crawford said.
Mr Monaghan was not aware Endacom had viewed his messages before his sacking and the commissioner noted it was ‘never’ his intention for them to be seen.
Commissioner Crawford also highlighted it was ‘clearly common’ for the employees to use strong language, and the comments needed to be viewed in this context.
The unintentional disclosure of the comments and the fact they were sent outside work hours were also factors, he added.
‘I find that Mr Monaghan’s dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable,’ the commissioner said, ruling that the engineer had been unfairly dismissed.
‘Mr Monaghan’s dismissal was harsh because he never intended for Endacom management to view the relevant messages and they were only identified because (a staff member) started reading material on (a) computer.
‘The dismissal was also harsh because Mr Monaghan had provided quality service to Endacom for around 3.5 years prior to the messages being identified.
‘The dismissal was unjust and unreasonable because Endacom did not provide any procedural fairness to Mr Monaghan.’
Endacom was ordered to pay Mr Monaghan $13,701 as compensation, along with $1,644 into his superannuation fund.
