Why Being “Evasive” With Your Employer Can Cost You Your Job

A Newcastle postie just found out the hard way that honesty isn’t optional during a workplace investigation. After 36 years with Australia Post, he was sacked for driving a company van to KFC on an unauthorised break, then stonewalling his employer when they asked him about it. The Fair Work Commission backed the sacking.

It’s a good one for any employer who’s ever felt like they’re negotiating with a hostage during a disciplinary process. Here’s what happened, and what it means for you.

What actually happened?

The driver worked in Australia Post’s Hunter Van Service unit. On 7 May 2025, after sitting in on a meeting as a support person, he drove an Australia Post vehicle to a Mayfield KFC for lunch, off his rostered break time and without telling his supervisor. He then left his shift 30 minutes early, citing an old unofficial custom called “early fly”, which was never an authorised entitlement.

When his supervisor asked him to explain his whereabouts the next morning, he refused, calling it “none of their business.” Later that day, in conversation with another manager, he acknowledged he’d been “evasive.”

From there it got worse. Over the following weeks, Australia Post tried to check in with him roughly 17 times through texts, calls and letters. He claimed he thought the texts might be a scam, but the evidence showed he’d replied to two of them, late at night. He also told a supervisor he was going to “have some fun” before he retired in a couple of years.

Deputy President Saunders preferred Australia Post’s account of events over the driver’s. He found the driver had genuinely been “playing games,” including replying to messages after hours when he knew nobody would see it, and blocking texts about his non-attendance. Across a single month, the FWC found at least 19 instances of failing to attend work or contact the business about his absence.

The driver argued the dismissal was harsh given his length of service, financial hardship and mental health. The Commission didn’t buy it. Saunders found Australia Post acted fairly and reasonably, and that a meaningful employment relationship can’t survive an employee’s ongoing refusal to cooperate.

Why did the Commission side with the employer?

Three things stacked up against the driver, and any one of them would carry weight on its own. Together they were fatal to his case.

He misused a company asset and lied about it. Using the van without permission was one thing. Refusing to be straight about it when asked was another. The Commission clearly treated the honesty failure as more serious than the original incident.

He ignored repeated, reasonable attempts at contact. Seventeen contact attempts is not one missed call. That’s a sustained pattern that shows a deliberate choice to disengage, not a one-off lapse in judgement.

Long service didn’t outweigh serious misconduct. Thirty-six years counted for something, in that the Commission acknowledged he’d struggle to find new work. But it didn’t excuse the conduct. Tenure earns respect, not immunity.

What this means for your business

This case is a clean example of something we see constantly: employers lose faith in their process, not their policy. If you’re managing a similar situation, a few things matter more than people expect.

Document every contact attempt. Australia Post’s paper trail of texts, calls and letters is what turned “he went quiet” into proven, wilful non-cooperation. Without that record, this becomes a much harder case to win.

Evasiveness is evidence, not just a vibe. If an employee refuses to explain themselves during an investigation, note it and put it in writing. The Commission treated the driver’s own admission of being “evasive” as significant. Don’t lose that kind of thing to memory.

A pattern beats a single incident. One unauthorised break is a conduct conversation. Nineteen unexplained absences and non-responses in a month is a different case entirely. Track the pattern, don’t just react to the latest flare-up.

Long-serving staff still need to meet the mark. We get asked a lot whether long tenure protects someone from dismissal. It doesn’t. It’s one factor the Commission weighs, not a shield.

One founder we worked with faced something similar: a long-tenured employee who’d become impossible to manage, going quiet whenever performance issues came up. We helped them build a proper investigation trail, documented every attempt at contact, and worked through a fair process that held up when it mattered. The lesson was the same one this case reinforces: a fair process, properly documented, is what protects you.

If you’re dealing with an employee who’s gone cagey mid-investigation, don’t wing it. Get the process right before you act, not after.

FAQs

Can I dismiss an employee for being uncooperative during an investigation?

Yes, if it’s part of a pattern and properly documented. A single moment of frustration won’t cut it on its own, but a sustained, deliberate refusal to engage, especially alongside other misconduct, can support a valid dismissal.

Does long service protect an employee from dismissal?

No. Length of service is a factor the Fair Work Commission considers, but it does not override serious or wilful misconduct. This case involved 36 years of service and the dismissal still stood.

What counts as “wilful” misconduct?

Conduct the Commission finds was deliberate, not accidental or the result of a genuine misunderstanding. Here, the Commission found the driver had knowingly avoided contact and misused work time, which met that bar.

How many missed contact attempts is “too many” before it becomes misconduct?

There’s no fixed number, but the more sustained and reasonable your attempts to reach an employee, the stronger your case that any non-response was deliberate. In this case, 17 contact attempts over several weeks was persuasive.

What should employers do if an employee goes quiet during a disciplinary process?

Keep documenting every attempt to contact them, through multiple channels if needed, and don’t assume silence means you have to drop the matter. A clear, well-documented paper trail is what will protect you if the matter ends up before the Commission.