White Anting: serious misconduct?

White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within.  White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt.  White Anting  has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and for this reasons alone, employers need to be aware of the affect of this behaviour in the workplace.

White Anting and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Although not defined in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act), White Anting can fall within the broader concept of serious misconduct and workplace bullying where the behaviour is deliberate, repeated, and undermines trust or working relationships.  When characterised as a form of workplace bullying, such conduct may be sufficient to justify summary dismissal.

Legal framework

Under regulation 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), “serious misconduct” is conduct that wilfully or deliberately contravenes workplace standards such that it justifies immediate dismissal without notice.  The Fair Work Commission (Commission) assesses whether the employer had a valid reason for dismissal by considering whether the conduct breached the employment contract, company policy, or the implied duty of fidelity and good faith.

White Anting is also captured under the bullying provisions of the Fair Work Act as repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed at an individual or group that creates a risk to health and safety can amount to bullying.  Subtle actions such as undermining, victimising, or spreading misinformation, making statements which are defamatory can meet this test when they are persistent.

Recognition of White Anting in practice

Many large Queensland employers now go beyond broad misconduct rules and clearly spell out behaviours such as White Anting in their workplace policies.  For example, Energy Queensland’s Employee Code of Conduct Policy (P004 – 691422) explicitly identifies undermining or White Anting another employee as unacceptable conduct.^[1] 

These behaviours are listed alongside other problematic workplace actions, including abusive or humiliating language, unjustified criticism, deliberately excluding someone from work activities, and withholding information needed for an employee to do their job properly. 

This policy makes clear that White Anting does not need to meet the full legal threshold for bullying or harassment to be actionable, it is prohibited as inappropriate workplace behaviour in its own right.

The Fair Work Commission’s view

There are no recent Commission decisions in Queensland, or nationally, where an employee has been dismissed solely for White Anting and the Commission has been required to decide whether that conduct alone amounted to serious misconduct.  However, the term has been considered in Commission proceedings. 

One example is Thomas Concannon v Portland District Health [2015] COMMISSION 513 (Concannon v Portland).^[2]  In Concannon v Portland, Mr Thomas Concannon (Concannon), a Human Resources Manager, resigned and alleged that he had been constructively dismissed after being subjected to workplace bullying, including what he described as White-Anting by colleagues.  The dispute escalated after Concannon sent an email stating he had “nothing to lose” and threatening to “unleash 10 kinds of hell” on those involved.

The Commission dismissed the claim, finding that Concannonhad resigned voluntarily and had not taken reasonable steps to address the issues before resigning.  Concannon v Portland demonstrates that the Commission treats allegations of White Anting as part of the broader factual context in bullying or dismissal claims, rather than as misconduct assessed in isolation.

More recent Queensland decisions involving subtle undermining or alleged bullying behaviours continue this approach.  For example, earlier this year in Serena Donato & Emma Donato v Queensland Venue Co Pty Ltd [2026] COMMISSION 362 (Donato v Queensland Venue) the Commission closely examined whether the conduct relied upon by the applicant genuinely amounted to bullying or had been overstated.  In Donato v Queensland Venue, Serena Donato pointed to a desk prank involving rubber ducks and a satanic symbol as evidence of bullying, but this was undermined by later evidence that she had voluntarily obtained a tattoo of the same symbol.

Together, these cases highlight the Commission’s ongoing focus on carefully testing the facts and context of alleged undermining or bullying, rather than accepting labels such as “White Anting” at face value.

Practical implications for employers

For employers, the explicit prohibition against White Anting within workplace codes of conduct strengthens the basis for disciplinary action.  When relying on White Anting as serious misconduct as the reason for dismissal, employers should ensure they:

• record specific examples of the conduct, including dates, witnesses, and its impact on the workplace;
• conduct a procedurally fair investigation and provide the employee with an opportunity to respond; and
• confirm that the behaviour is repeated or sufficiently serious to undermine trust and confidence.

The more interesting legal development is the shift from focusing solely on overt bullying to recognising more subtle forms of workplace sabotage.  In hybrid and remote working environments, White Anting may be harder to detect as it occurs, yet it can be equally damaging to morale and productivity.  Queensland government employers are responding by expressly defining this conduct in policy, enabling more decisive action while still complying with the procedural fairness requirements of the Fair Work Act.

Key takeaways about White Anting

For employees, White Anting carries real risk.  What may feel like letting off steam or “office politics” can become grounds for dismissal if it breaches policy or amounts to bullying.  We recommend considering informing employees of the potential consequences of White Anting behaviour and including a prohibition against it in employee policy manuals.

Links and further references

Legislation

 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth)

Cases

Thomas Concannon v Portland District Health [2015] COMMISSION 513

Serena Donato & Emma Donato v Queensland Venue Co Pty Ltd [2026] COMMISSION 362

Further information about employment law

If you require advice terminating an employee because of White Anting, reviewing or drafting workplace policies, conducting investigations, or responding to an unfair dismissal claim, please 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

[1] Energy Queensland’s Employee Code of Conduct Policy (P004 – 691422), Release 11 (31 January 2025) page 5, clause 4.

[2] Thomas Concannon v Portland District Health [2015] COMMISSION 513 (30 January 2015).

Related insights about employment law