When Does Dishonesty at Work Cross the Line?

Co-Authored by Vishaal Kudupudi & Zachary Rowswell

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Dishonesty can provide a valid basis for dismissal, but the circumstances of the conduct and the employer’s reasons for considering it serious will be important.

• Employers should not act on allegations of serious misconduct without first investigating them. Employees should be told what is alleged and given a genuine opportunity to respond before a decision is made.

• Employees should take particular care when changing or relying on workplace documents, especially where those documents may later be provided to the Fair Work Commission or another legal body.

• Accurate employment records matter. Inconsistencies between an employment contract and the way an employee’s position is described in practice can contribute to wider disputes about duties, responsibilities and remuneration.

---

What Happened in Dendroulakis v CCIB Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 3373

In Foula Dendroulakis v CCIB Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 3373, what initially appeared to be a dispute about an employee’s position title ultimately became a dispute about dishonesty and whether that conduct justified dismissal.

Ms Foula Dendroulakis had worked for CCIB Services Pty Ltd, a Victorian insurance brokerage, since February 2021. Her employment contract described her as an “Account Manager”, while her business cards, email signature, LinkedIn profile and communications with clients referred to her as a “Senior Account Manager” or “Senior Account Executive”. CCIB later acknowledged that the word “Senior” had been omitted from her employment contract in error.

The issue became more significant in 2025. CCIB had raised concerns about Ms Dendroulakis’ productivity, including concerns about her work output while working from home and an occasion on which she left the office before a scheduled client meeting. Ms Dendroulakis disputed those concerns and raised the discrepancy between her contractual title and the senior duties she said she was performing.

On 27 November 2025, Ms Dendroulakis lodged a general protections application with the Fair Work Commission (“FWC”), alleging, among other things, that she had performed senior duties without appropriate remuneration.

As part of that application, she provided a 2022 pay-rise letter. The original version of the letter described her as a “Senior Account Manager”. The version provided to the Commission described her only as an “Account Manager”.

CCIB discovered the discrepancy and issued a show cause letter, asking Ms Dendroulakis to explain why the document had been altered.

Ms Dendroulakis said she had changed a locally saved Word version of the document as a “reflexive correction”, because she believed “Account Manager” was correct based on the title in her employment contract. She denied intending to mislead the Commission.

CCIB did not accept that explanation. It considered the alteration to constitute deliberate dishonesty and a serious breach of trust, and dismissed Ms Dendroulakis on 15 December 2025.

 

Why Did the Fair Work Commission Accept the Dismissal?

A significant factor in the decision was that CCIB was a small business employer, with 14 employees. Ms Dendroulakis argued that employees of Coverforce Partners, which had a joint venture relationship with CCIB and provided guidance in areas such as business growth and marketing, should also be counted when determining whether CCIB was a small business. The FWC rejected that argument, finding that Coverforce did not control CCIB’s day-to-day operations or workplace decisions.

As CCIB had fewer than 15 employees, the dismissal was considered under the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code under s 388 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). This specific framework applies to small business employers and provides that, in cases of serious misconduct, a dismissal may be fair where the employer “believes on reasonable grounds that the employee’s conduct is sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal.”

The FWC found that CCIB genuinely held that belief and had reasonable grounds for it. In reaching that conclusion, the Commission considered the circumstances surrounding the altered document, CCIB’s investigation and Ms Dendroulakis’ explanation before finding that the dismissal was consistent with the Code.

The FWC found that CCIB genuinely held that belief and had reasonable grounds for doing so.

Importantly, CCIB had not dismissed Ms Dendroulakis immediately after discovering the altered document. It investigated the discrepancy, put the allegations to her, provided the relevant documents and gave her an opportunity to explain what had occurred. CCIB then considered her explanation before making its decision.

The FWC was satisfied that CCIB had sufficient information about the conduct and its surrounding circumstances to form its view. The unfair dismissal application was therefore dismissed.

 

What Does the Decision Mean for Employers and Employees?

For Employers, the decision demonstrates the importance of following a fair and considered process when serious misconduct is suspected. A dismissal should not simply follow an allegation of dishonesty. Employers should establish what occurred, give the employee an opportunity to respond and consider that response before deciding whether dismissal is appropriate.

The decision also highlights the importance of maintaining accurate employment records. In this case, the inconsistency between Ms Dendroulakis’ contractual title and the titles used elsewhere in the business became relevant to a wider dispute about her position and remuneration. Employers should ensure that employment contracts and other records accurately reflect the employee’s role and position description.

For Employees, the decision is a reminder that workplace documents should be treated carefully, particularly when they may later be relied upon in a legal proceeding. A change that appears to be a minor correction may be viewed differently when considered in the context of a dispute.

That does not mean that every mistake or alteration will amount to serious misconduct. The circumstances in which the change was made, the employee’s explanation and the process followed by the employer will all be relevant.

 

What the FWC Did Not Decide

It is also important to understand what the FWC did not decide.

The Commission did not determine whether Ms Dendroulakis was in fact underpaid or whether her underlying general protections allegations had merit. Those issues did not need to be determined once the Commission found that the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.

 

The Bottom Line

This decision demonstrates that dishonesty in the workplace can have serious consequences, particularly where an employer reasonably considers the conduct to have undermined the trust necessary for the employment relationship.

At the same time, the decision is not authority for the proposition that every mistake involving a workplace document justifies dismissal. For employers, the investigation and decision-making process remain critical. For employees, accuracy and care when dealing with workplace records are equally important.

Ultimately, the case highlights the importance of trust, accurate employment records and a fair process on both sides of the employment relationship.

 

How can Coutts Help?

The Employment Lawyers at Coutts Lawyers and Conveyancers can assist employers and employees with workplace investigations, disciplinary processes, employment contracts, performance management and termination of employment.

Obtaining legal advice at an early stage can assist in identifying potential risks and ensuring that employment decisions are approached fairly, carefully and in accordance with applicable legal obligations.

 

---

ABOUT MELISSA CARE: