“Cold-hearted” HR Conduct Exposed: Hisense Found Guilty of Unlawful Adverse Action Against Employee Who Sought Justice

By 1800NOWINNOFEE™ – Defending Workers, Demanding Justice

In a scathing 65-page judgment handed down by the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the local arm of global electronics giant Hisense has been found to have unlawfully dismissed a long-serving employee in retaliation for his pursuit of unpaid entitlements and workplace rights.

The decision in Naskovski v Hisense Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 943 shines a harsh spotlight on what Judge Catherine Symons described as a "cold-hearted and antithetical" approach to human resource management. Central to the controversy was Hisense’s HR manager, whose actions and credibility were sharply criticised by the Court.

This landmark decision reinforces the vital legal protections workers have under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)—particularly the general protections provisions—and serves as a warning to all employers: retaliation against employees for asserting their workplace rights will not be tolerated.

The Background: A Worker Seeking Fair Pay

Mr Naskovski, a customer service team coach, had long been raising concerns about being underpaid due to Hisense’s alleged misclassification of his role under the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020. In 2020, he received a partial "salary adjustment" of $12,407 after earlier complaints. However, he continued to press for full backpay, engaging in a persistent yet lawful campaign to obtain copies of his employment records and clarity over his entitlements.

His commitment to pursuing what he believed he was owed appeared to set him on a collision course with Hisense’s HR department—more specifically, with its HR manager, who the Court later found played a central role in orchestrating his dismissal.

From Whistleblower to Target

In late 2020, Mr Naskovski accepted a promotion to team leader—an offer extended by a call centre supervisor who was later dismissed for fraud. By mid-2021, Hisense notified Mr Naskovski that the role would be re-advertised. Rather than reapplying, he advised he would continue to pursue his underpayment claim.

Soon after, Hisense escalated demands for Mr Naskovski’s personal documents—despite him being an Australian-born citizen and long-standing employee. These demands included requests for a new employee form, proof of residency, and eventually, a birth certificate and passport—under threat of termination.

Simultaneously, Hisense distributed an internal newsletter globally referring to a $3.7 million fraud scandal—one of the cases being in Australia. Mr Naskovski forwarded that newsletter and relevant HR correspondence from his work to his personal email account.

The next day, tech media outlet ChannelNews published an article exposing Hisense’s internal fraud. Within 24 hours, Mr Naskovski was locked out of his email account, accused of leaking internal information, and placed on "gardening leave."

Procedural Fairness Abandoned

Despite multiple requests from Mr Naskovski for access to employment records and investigation details, the HR manager declined to provide any updates or documentation. Meanwhile, Mr Naskovski went on personal leave due to illness and, when exhausted, requested to access his annual leave.

His request was denied, with the HR manager citing a “busy season”—a decision Judge Symons later condemned as “cold-hearted.”

In January 2022, Hisense attempted to convene an “informal welfare meeting” via Zoom. When Mr Naskovski responded that he preferred written communication due to his health, the company unilaterally booked a medical assessment and then terminated his employment for allegedly refusing to attend both.

Judge Slams HR Tactics and Lack of Evidence

In her judgment, Judge Symons was unsparing in her criticism of the HR manager’s role:

“The response of Hisense... uniformly conveyed the message that [Mr Naskovski] was becoming a nuisance to Hisense management through his persistent efforts to obtain information and documentation.”

She described the HR manager’s evidence as "unreliable" and found that Hisense had failed to rebut the reverse onus of proof required under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act. Once an employee alleges adverse action for a prohibited reason—such as exercising a workplace right—the employer must prove that was not the reason for the action taken.

Hisense failed to provide a single document about its supposed investigation into the alleged leak—despite claiming its internal compliance and legal teams had been involved. Most of the correspondence relied on in court had been produced by Mr Naskovski himself.

The Decision: Adverse Action, Breaches, and a Reckoning

Judge Symons ultimately found:

• Hisense took adverse action against Mr Naskovski for exercising his workplace rights, contrary to section 340 of the Fair Work Act;

• His employment was terminated unlawfully;

• Hisense had misclassified his employment under the applicable award, resulting in underpayments;

• The HR manager’s conduct was dismissive, retaliatory, and procedurally flawed;

• The company breached record-keeping obligations and failed to provide key documentation.

The Court ordered the parties to confer on underpayment calculations before finalising relief and penalties, leaving open the prospect of significant compensation and civil penalties against Hisense.

“Cold-hearted” HR Conduct Exposed: Hisense Found Guilty of Unlawful Adverse Action Against Employee Who Sought Justice

Lessons for Workers and Employers

For Employees:This case underscores your right to question your pay, request employment records, and take personal leave without fear of retaliation. If your employer targets you for asserting these rights, that may constitute adverse action under the law—and you may be entitled to compensation and justice.

For Employers:Hisense’s errors serve as a cautionary tale. Dismissing an employee who is actively asserting workplace rights—especially without documented, lawful justification—can expose a company to serious legal and financial consequences. HR managers must follow fair processes, document investigations, and treat workers respectfully.

For HR Professionals:Judge Symons’ remarks about the HR manager's conduct highlight a deeper issue: HR departments must act with impartiality and care. Retaliatory actions, dismissiveness, or threats can turn a civil complaint into a legal catastrophe.

Final Word: Justice for Persistence

The Court’s finding that Mr Naskovski was treated as a “nuisance” for simply asking to be paid correctly and for access to documents he was lawfully entitled to is a damning indictment on workplace culture at Hisense Australia.

At 1800NOWINNOFEE™, we champion workers like Mr Naskovski—those brave enough to stand up for their rights despite intimidation and retaliation. If you believe you’ve been unfairly treated or dismissed for asserting your workplace rights, call 1800NOWINNOFEE™ today.

We’re here to fight for justice. Because no one should be punished for asking to be treated fairly.