Pranks, pentagrams and probation: Key case law updates for employers in February 2026

From workplace pranks to defamation claims against HR managers, two recent employment law decisions have highlighted that employers should have all their (rubber) ‘ducks in a row’ before terminating employment.

The rubber duck summoning ritual: Humour or harm?

In the recent decision of Serena Donato & Emma Donato v Queensland Venue Co Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission awarded $15,000 compensation to an employee couple who were dismissed due to a “rubber duck summoning ritual” and comments made in a workplace group chat.

What happened? 

The Duty Manager, in an attempt to “boost morale”, placed small rubber ducks in staff areas as a “light-hearted gesture”. This continued as a running joke for several weeks. One evening at work, the Duty Manager arranged rubber ducks and paper candles around a hand-drawn pentagram on a manager’s desk, which was described as “a summoning ritual to summon more ducks”. The Duty Manager submitted she intended to bring in a larger duck the next day as a “product of the spell”.

The Manager was not as amused by the prank and reacted by lodging a formal complaint, stating that “[n]o matter if it seems funny with the duckies, it is a symbol of evoking the devil”. An investigation ensued, in which the Manager claimed she was distressed by the incident. Particularly, the Manager said, “I did not know what I was going to see the next day, was it going to be a rubber duck hanging on a noose?”.

As news of the investigation spread, a Food and Beverage Supervisor at another Queensland Venue Co Ltd site (and the Duty Manager’s wife), sent several messages to an Instagram workplace group chat allegedly attempting to “mock, ridicule and further embarrass” the Manager.

What did the employer do?

Queensland Venue Co held disciplinary meetings with the Duty Manager and Food and Beverage Supervisor (together, the Applicants) and dismissed them for serious misconduct and bullying.

What did the employees do?

The Applicants applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC), alleging that they were both unfairly dismissed from their employment.

What did the FWC find?

Commissioner Simpson accepted the Duty Manager’s evidence and held that “while her prank may have been unwise it was not intended to be malicious”. Particularly, Commissioner Simpson noted (in the decision):

• The basis for which the Employer held the view that there were issues between Applicants and the Manager was based on vague assertions and hearsay evidence that there were “tensions between the two which were being resolved locally”.
• One rubber duck was found in the tray of another employee, suggesting that the prank was not directly targeted at the Manager.
• The behaviour did not amount to bullying under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
  

In light of this, Commissioner Simpson was not satisfied that there was a valid reason to dismiss either of the Applicants and awarded each of the Applicants six weeks’ pay plus super.

Defamation claims against HR managers

The Federal Court of Australia recently affirmed that the documentation of legitimate employee performance issues by HR does not amount to defamation. In Mbuzi v Aye [2026] FCA 26, former World Vision Australia employee, Josiyas Mbuzi, personally sued three HR managers over allegedly “defamatory” comments made during his probation review.

What happened? 

In September 2023, the Applicant met with two HR managers for a probation check-in. During the check-in, the managers raised concerns about the Applicant’s “bad behaviour” and its impact on others. Following the meeting, the Applicant received an email summarising the discussion, which was also copied to his manager. 

One month later, the Applicant received a letter from his manager, outlining that his employment had been terminated due to ongoing conduct and communication issues. The Applicant also received a separate email from a third HR manager, reiterating that his behaviour had fallen short of World Vision’s minimum standards of conduct, resulting in his employment termination.

What did the employee do?

The Applicant filed applications against all three HR managers in the Federal Court of Australia alleging personal defamation. Particularly, the Applicant claimed that the statements made during the probation check-in meeting and subsequent email correspondence were false, reckless, defamatory and made in malice.

The Applicant also claimed that the publications had caused such serious harm, that he had lost a permanent full-time job that he intended to hold for up to 20 years.

What did the Court find?

The Federal Court held that the Applicant had no reasonable prospects of successfully proving defamation and dismissed the claim with costs against the Applicant.

While the imputations were not trivial, they could not be regarded by the Court as “grave or serious”. As a result, they did not meet the threshold requirement of “serious harm” under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). Further to this, there was no evidence that the email copied to the Applicant’s manager caused the termination.

This decision reiterates the legal protections for HR practitioners. Specifically, confirming that internal communications addressing legitimate performance concerns do not amount to defamation, provided they are shared only with relevant staff. 

These cases serve as a timely reminder that employment decisions must be approached carefully and with clear evidence. Missteps can result in costly disputes, even when the behaviour seems trivial or the communications are routine. By obtaining expert legal advice early, organisations can protect their reputation, maintain staff morale and make informed decisions that align with both legal obligations and best practice workplace management.