When Threats Cross the Line: The FWC’s Ruling in Dewar v Pek Care [2025] FWC 1587

In a powerful reminder of the limits of tolerance in the workplace, the Fair Work Commission has ruled that an employee’s threatening behaviour toward his managers was serious enough to justify dismissal—even where his resignation may have been given in the “heat of the moment.” The case of Mr Thor Dewar v Pek Care [2025] FWC 1587 raises important questions about procedural fairness, the small business dismissal code, and how employers must respond to volatile situations—particularly those involving threats of violence.

The Background: When Feedback Turns Dangerous

Pek Care, a humanitarian organisation operating an op shop in Western Australia, found itself in a precarious situation last September when one of its workers, Mr Thor Dewar, abruptly resigned during a disciplinary meeting that quickly spiralled out of control. The meeting had been convened to formally address a string of alleged performance and conduct issues that had accumulated over time, including:

• Viewing inappropriate “demonic” videos and playing unsuitable music at work;

• Repeated use of female restrooms despite prior warnings;

• Making defamatory allegations about a colleague’s drug use, gambling, and promiscuity;

• Operating a forklift while admitting he would fail a drug test;

• Boasting about having been in jail with a volunteer accused of murder.

Rather than calmly addressing these matters, the worker is said to have launched into a series of aggressive outbursts, threatening his managers with bikie retaliation and stating, “there is a bullet with your name on it.” He followed up with threatening gestures and an abrupt exit, telling management, “I’m done. I’m out of here,” before throwing his keys at them.

The Legal Question: Resignation or Dismissal?

Central to the case was a legal conundrum: Did Mr Dewar resign, or was he dismissed?

Pek Care argued it had not dismissed Mr Dewar, and instead relied on his words and actions during the meeting to conclude he had voluntarily resigned. However, Dewar later sent a message to the corporate manager asking if he had been fired and whether he could return to work—a clear signal that his intentions might not have been as firm as they seemed in the moment.

Commissioner Paul Schneider carefully considered the events and accepted that the resignation appeared to be made in the heat of the moment. In such cases, consistent with case law, employers are usually required to allow time for the worker to “cool off” and clarify their intent. Pek Care, however, had taken the resignation at face value and moved on without offering that opportunity.

Serious Misconduct and the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code

Despite the procedural flaw, the Commission ruled in favour of Pek Care.

Why? Because even if Dewar had not effectively resigned, his conduct was so egregious that Pek Care would have been justified in summarily dismissing him under the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (SBFDC). The SBFDC provides that an employer does not unfairly dismiss an employee if the dismissal is due to serious misconduct and the employer held a reasonable belief that the conduct justified immediate termination.

Commissioner Schneider wrote:

“The threats alone justify the summary dismissal of his employment. He made direct threats to the personal safety of his managers and caused them to be concerned for their wellbeing.”

The Commissioner reinforced the position that violent or threatening conduct in the workplace is entirely unacceptable and may override any obligation to offer an opportunity to retract a resignation.

Lessons for Employers and Employees

1. Heated Resignations Require CautionEmployers must tread carefully when an employee resigns during an emotionally charged moment. It is well established that a resignation made in the heat of the moment should not be immediately accepted without allowing the individual to cool off and confirm their decision.

2. Threats Are Never ProtectedWhile procedural fairness is vital, it does not offer protection for employees who make serious threats of violence or intimidation. As this case confirms, such behaviour can warrant summary dismissal—especially under the Small Business Code.

3. Document EverythingPek Care’s ability to recount the specific conduct issues, coupled with the evidence of threatening behaviour, was essential to the success of their defence. Even in small businesses, maintaining clear records of warnings, incidents, and interactions can prove critical if matters escalate to a legal forum.

4. Procedural Fairness Still MattersWhile Pek Care ultimately succeeded, it was not without a finding that they had failed to give Mr Dewar a chance to withdraw his resignation. If the threats had not occurred, this procedural error could have tipped the scales against them.

When Threats Cross the Line: The FWC’s Ruling in Dewar v Pek Care [2025] FWC 1587

A Final Word

The decision in Dewar v Pek Care [2025] FWC 1587 serves as a stark reminder that no matter the stress, no matter the tension—there are lines that cannot be crossed in the workplace. Threats of physical violence, even if born out of frustration, are taken seriously by both employers and the Commission.

At the same time, the case reinforces the principle that even small businesses must follow fair and measured processes in dealing with resignations and dismissals—especially where high emotion is involved.

In this instance, Pek Care’s failure to clarify the resignation was ultimately irrelevant, because the seriousness of Mr Dewar’s threats overrode the need for further procedural fairness. But that won’t always be the case.

For employees, the lesson is simple: words said in anger can have irreversible consequences. And for employers, it’s a reminder that clear policies, measured reactions, and an understanding of the law remain their strongest shields when confronting workplace conflict.

Need advice on workplace conduct or unfair dismissal? Contact 1800NOWINNOFEE. We’re here to help. gethelp@nowinnifee.help | 1800 669 466 | www.nowinnofee.help

Dislcaimer Nothing in this article or website constitutes legal advice and is not an offer of legal services.

We are professional Employment and Human Rights Advocates, not Lawyers.