White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who engage in White Anting in the workplace.

Recap: White Anting and the legal framework

White Anting in the workplace refers to deliberate, covert, conduct designed to undermine colleagues, management or organisational integrity from within.  While not expressly defined in legislation, it may be captured under regulation 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Regulations), as serious misconduct or, as workplace bullying under section 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act) provided it is intentional, repeated and poses a serious and imminent risk to the health or safety of a person, or to the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business.. Under these circumstances, White Anting may warrant dismissal, or even summary dismissal.

Establishing grounds for dismissal

Dismissing an employee for White Anting without following the correct process could result in an unfair dismissal claim.  Under section 387 of the Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Commission’s (Commission) primary inquiry is whether the employer had a valid reason for the dismissal.  This assessment by reference to whether theemployer’s stated reason for dismissal was sound, defensible and well‑founded, is based on the evidence they have received.  

Where White Anting is concerned, two (2) recognised grounds can arise:

1. Loss of trust and confidence, particularly where the employee occupies a role requiring cooperation, discretion or leadership.  The Commission has confirmed that trust and confidence can be destroyed by a single act of sufficient gravity.  
   • One example is Sologinkin v Cosmetic Suppliers Pty Ltd T/A Coty [2017] FWC 1838 (Sologinkin v Cosmetic Suppliers) where Mrs Sologinkin, an employee with sixteen (16) years unblemished service, accidentally sent an offensive email to clients. 
   • The Commission held that the dismissal was justified in this case, because of the damage caused to the employer’s reputation.  That said, loss of trust and confidence must be supported by sufficient evidence. 
   • Conversely in Mammarella v Department of Parliamentary Services [2019] FWC 6340 at [61] (Mammarella v DPS) the employer’s assertion of loss of trust and confidence was unsupported by sufficient evidence to establish a valid reason for dismissal.
2. Breach of workplace policy, including codes of conduct, anti-bullying policies or express provisions prohibiting undermining conduct. However, a breach of policy is not determinative under section 387(a) of the Fair Work Act, all circumstances must be considered.
   • For example; in Agnew v Nationwide News Ltd PR927597 (AIRC, Raffaelli C, 11 February 2003)where employees where dismissed after it was discovered they were drinking alcohol during their lunch break, the Commission considered the broader facts which included; recent policy change, inconsistent enforcement, and the employees’ service records, and determined that whilst breach of policy was a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was harsh and unjust in the circumstance.

Section 387 also requires the Commission to consider whether the employee was notified of the reason for dismissal, and given a genuine opportunity to respond, before being dismissed.  An employer who fails these procedural steps risks an otherwise justifiable dismissal being found unfair.

Procedural fairness is not optional

Even where the White Anting conduct is serious, procedural fairness, and the issue of natural justice remains non-negotiable.  Before any dismissal decision is made, employers should ensure they have:

• put the specific allegations clearly to the employee in writing;
• allowed the employee a reasonable opportunity to respond and genuinely considered that response;
• conducted a thorough and impartial investigation; and
• made a decision proportionate to the seriousness of the proven conduct.

Where summary dismissal (termination without notice) is considered, the evidentiary bar rises further.  The principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 (Briginshaw v Briginshaw) apply, meaning the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence required to substantiate it.  Suspicion, “vibes” or one-sided accounts are not enough.

What evidence is required?

Because White Anting rarely leaves an obvious footprint, employers may need to build a documented pattern of behaviour over time.  Successful disciplinary outcomes in these cases typically rely on:

• contemporaneous complaints or witness statements recorded close to the time of the alleged conduct;
• written communications; emails, messages or meeting notes which demonstrate deliberate exclusion, misinformation or manipulation;
• evidence of a pattern of behaviour, rather than isolated incidents;
• records of prior warnings, performance management steps or interventions showing the conduct was ongoing and the employee had notice it was unacceptable; and
• consistent enforcement; evidence against the employer may include examples of tolerance of the same conduct in the past.  For example, where management turned a blind eye to similar behaviour from other employees.

This is especially important in cases of White Anting by employees, where conduct is often cumulative, covert and contested.

When summary dismissal is and is not appropriate

Regulation 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations permits summary dismissal only where the misconduct is sufficiently serious that is, where it is wilful or deliberate and of a kind that makes continued employment incompatible.

Not all White Anting will meet this threshold, it is a question of degree.  The employer’s response must be proportionate to the seriousness of the alleged conduct.  For example, workplace bullying is typically a valid reason for dismissal but in Frost v Ambulance Victoria [2025] FWCFB 94 (Frost v Ambulance Victoria), a case where the employee’s rude behaviour and disrespect of women, was the grounds of his dismissal the Full Bench decided that on the “spectrum of seriousness” the behaviour was not of a degree to warrant dismissal.

Where there is doubt about whether the conduct clears the summary dismissal threshold, a staged disciplinary process supported by a clear policy, a documented investigation, written warnings and a show-cause process will typically be the safer path.  This also produces a stronger evidentiary foundation if the matter later proceeds to the Commission.

Practical steps for employers

Employers seeking to address White Anting should consider:

• updating workplace policies to expressly identify undermining, White Anting or covert conduct designed to damage colleagues or management as a prohibited behaviour;
• promptly and impartially investigating, and not letting complaints go uninvestigated and consider engaging an investigator skilled in preserving evidence where the allegations are serious;
• documenting incidents on an ongoing basis, individual acts may appear minor in isolation, however the cumulative pattern of behaviour can establish grounds for dismissal;
• following a procedurally fair process, notify the employee of the allegations, investigate thoroughly, give them a genuine opportunity to respond, before concluding;
• ensure the disciplinary outcome is proportionate to the seriousness of the proven conduct.  Summary dismissals for minor or borderline conduct may provoke unfair dismissal claims.

Key takeaways

The statutory provisions are intended to ensure a “fair go all round” see Wake v Queensland Rail (2006) 156 IR 393 at [23] which is why terminating employees on the grounds of White Anting grounds can be problematic.  Dismissals based on White Anting must be proportionate and supported by admissible evidence. 

Employers who can point to a clear policy, documented patterns of behaviour and a procedurally fair process are better placed to justify dismissals.

Early groundwork to control the narrative is key.  If you suspect White Anting in your organisation, taking steps to build the evidentiary foundation before you act will significantly reduce your exposure to Fair Work claims.

If White Anting behaviours are emerging in your workplace, or are already out of control, we can help you terminate the culprits before it becomes an entrenched infestation.

Links and further references

Legislation

Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth)

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Cases

Sologinkin v Cosmetic Suppliers Pty Ltd T/A Coty [2017] FWC 1838

Mammarella v Department of Parliamentary Services [2019] FWC 6340

Agnew v Nationwide News Ltd PR927597 (AIRC, Raffaelli C, 11 February 2003)

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Frost v Ambulance Victoria [2025] FWCFB 94

Further information about White Anting in the workplace

If you need advice on terminating an employee that is engaging in White Anting and undermining your business contact us for a confidential and obligation‑free discussion..

Disclaimer

This article contains general commentary only.  You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances

Related insights about employment law