An engineer dismissed after posting “extremely insulting” comments about his boss in a WhatsApp group has been awarded $15,345, after the Fair Work Commission ruled that his termination was unfair.
Tyler Monaghan worked as a project engineer on Snowy Hydro 2.0 for construction company Endacom from June 2022 until November 2025.
In October 2025, he gave the company eight weeks’ notice of his intention to resign. However, Endacom summarily dismissed him after discovering messages he had shared in a group chat.
Mr Monaghan subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim. In a decision published on Tuesday, Fair Work Commissioner Stephen Crawford found in his favour.
The commission heard that management became aware of the messages after seeing them on another employee’s computer. A photograph of the screen was then taken.
“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.”
Instead, Mr Monaghan had been exchanging private messages with engineering colleagues and friends in a WhatsApp group of nine employees—messages that were never intended to be seen by his manager or Endacom’s management.
Engineer Tyler Monaghan was dismissed after posting “extremely insulting” messages about his boss in a WhatsApp group and has been awarded $15,345 after winning his unfair dismissal case
The comments themselves were not included in the decision, but Commissioner Crawford described them as “extremely insulting” and said they breached Mr Monaghan’s 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 sent the messages outside working hours and away from work, some recipients were on duty at the time and every member of the group was employed by Endacom.
The group was used to exchange both work-related and personal information. In those circumstances, Commissioner Crawford concluded that Mr Monaghan’s conduct had a sufficient connection to his employment to amount to a breach of his contract.
The commissioner also found that Mr Monaghan had breached a contractual obligation prohibiting him from encouraging Endacom employees to resign.
However, he said it was not “remotely likely” that the messages would prompt any of the other eight colleagues in the group to leave the company.
‘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
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
‘Monaghan was not provided with an opportunity to express remorse for the messages and to offer any context or explanation,’ Mr 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.
Mr 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.
