Abstract
Delving into the experiences of Australian employees who were involuntarily dismissed from their jobs and lodged an unfair dismissal claim, this paper reports on the psychosocial, professional, and tangible harms of job loss, which can evolve into persistent residual effects for some individuals. Using a reflexive thematic analysis, we developed the ‘locus of harm’ framework, which categorises the potential sources of harm inflicted by unfair dismissal on an employee into two key categories: an institutional locus of harm and an identity locus of harm. The institutional locus of harm includes subcategories of organisational toxicity, human resource management system failures, and managerial gaslighting, while the identity locus of harm encompasses subcategories of reputational damage, material damage, and psychosocial injury. This framework provides a comprehensive explanation of the temporally occurring consequences of dismissal and the players involved in each element of harm. This paper offers insights to guide efforts in minimising these harms across different stages of the dismissal experience.
Keywords
Introduction
This paper focuses on the experiences of Australian employees who were involuntarily dismissed from their jobs and subsequently lodged unfair dismissal claims. It is crucial to acknowledge that workplace justice involves a complex interplay of viewpoints. While our research highlights instances where dismissals are perceived as unjust by employees, it is important to recognise that in many cases, the origin of the dismissal lies with the employee due to unacceptable behaviour, such as theft, bullying, or underperformance. From the outset, we acknowledge that there are stresses and negative impacts experienced by managers, HRM professionals, and other parties involved in implementing a dismissal process, despite maintaining our focus on the worker's viewpoint throughout this paper.
A person who is involuntarily dismissed from their job may be experiencing one of life's most stressful and harmful events (Brand, 2015). Dismissal can undermine their dignity, autonomy, identity, self-worth, and connections to others (Collins, 2021; Van Eersel et al., 2019). It may even infringe a worker's human rights (Collins, 2018). Sudden unemployment can damage the employee's sense that they are a productive member of society and trigger anxiety about their competence to perform in a future job role, while harbouring fears of another job loss (Arena et al., 2022). Risks to mental health and well-being associated with dismissal and subsequent unemployment include distress, anxiety, depression, and diminished self-esteem (Lent et al., 2023; Paul and Moser, 2009; Thompson et al., 2016). Further, the stigma of dismissal and subsequent partner strain and income disparity can cause familial and household distress, fragment the community, and negatively affect society (Zedlewski and Nichols, 2012). The trauma from a dismissal that is unfair, or is perceived to be unfair by the employee, is likely to be intensified, as an employee's perception of work injustice is also believed to rouse emotional responses that are associated with emotional suffering including anger, anxiety, and depression (Howard and Cordes, 2010). On this point, a recent appeal determined by the High Court of Australia in Elisha v Vision Australia Ltd [2024] HCA 50, declared that psychiatric injury was not too remote to be considered a foreseeable consequence of breaching fair disciplinary procedures resulting in a termination.
Thus, situated within the context of unfair dismissals in Australia, this paper considers the question: What are the potential harms employees may experience before, during, and after a perceived or actual unfair dismissal? This question explores the harm inflicted by dismissal on employees who felt so aggrieved that they lodged an unfair dismissal claim with Australia's federal industrial tribunal. Whether or not the employee was ‘successful’ in their claim for unfair dismissal is not the focus of this paper, as employees who do not succeed with a favourable claim, are still exposed to harms. Therefore, limiting the investigation to workers who received favourable outcomes from unfair dismissal claims would fail to recognise the extent of harm that dismissal, whether it be fair or unfair, can impose. This question forms part of a larger study being undertaken to explore how dismissed workers navigate the aftermath of being ‘unfairly’ dismissed and their longer-term career recovery. By building knowledge about the dismissal harms described by employees, we aim to improve awareness about the lived experiences of unexpected job loss for those who feel aggrieved that their dismissal was unfair, unjust, and/or unreasonable.
Studies on the employee's experience of job loss are typically undertaken from either the labour economics viewpoint (Jarosch, 2023), or through a sociological or psychological lens (Bertheau et al., 2022; Brand, 2015). Additionally, the extenuating circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic triggered a spike of interest in unexpected job loss, such as labour market and wage disruptions (Crayne, 2020; Montenovo et al., 2022), psychological distress and mental health impacts (Collie et al., 2020; Mojtahedi et al., 2021), and gender, race, and social inequality in job loss during the pandemic (Dang and Nguyen, 2021; Gemelas et al., 2022; Kantamneni, 2020).
Notably, while economists and sociologists are motivated to study job loss and unemployment (Brand, 2015: p. 371), limited studies have viewed the lived experience of job loss through the employment relations and human resource management (HRM) lens to consider the employee's job loss experience and recovery. This situation exists despite the expectation that organisations embed sustainable HRM approaches based on collective interests and ‘common good values’ such as dignity, solidarity, reciprocity, decent work, societal fairness, and workplace democracy to build sustainable organisations (Lu et al., 2023). Similarly, Saks (2022) describes how a reciprocity of care and concern can exist between employees and their organisation when a system of ‘caring HRM’ practices is in place. This study therefore explores people's experience of job loss through the unfair dismissal lens. It enables us to factor in the impact of the employer's role up to and during the dismissal, which has the potential to produce lingering harms. As the originator of the dismissal, the employer has the potential to inflict harm on employees through poor managerial prerogative, poor HRM processes and toxic workplace cultures.
Our findings on the employee's lived experience of dismissal resulted in the development of the locus of harm framework, which we present here. This framework categorises the sources of harm inflicted by unfair dismissal on an employee into two key categories: an institutional locus of harm and an identity locus of harm. The institutional locus of harm includes subcategories of organisational toxicity, HRM system failures, and managerial gaslighting, while the identity locus of harm encompasses subcategories of reputational damage, material damage, and psychosocial injury. This framework provides a comprehensive explanation of the temporally occurring consequences of dismissal and the players involved in each element of harm. The locus of harm framework offers insights to unions, legal and advocacy firms, HRM professionals and employers to drive improvements in support systems, policies, and processes that minimise the negative impacts of the dismissal experience. Employers who handle dismissals fairly and reasonably can aid affected workers in coping, recovering, and reintegrating as productive members of the workforce.
Drawing on the narratives provided from a participant group of Australian workers who believe that they were unfairly dismissed and lodged an unfair dismissal claim with Australia's industrial tribunal, as well as conversations with legal assistants involved in assisting unfairly dismissed workers, this is the first study to our knowledge that has created a profile of the experience of being unfairly dismissed. Some participants in this study withdrew their unfair dismissal application, others settled their claims, while others pursued arbitration. However, their belief that their dismissal was an ‘unfair dismissal’ is represented by their willingness to access the services of the Fair Work Commission (FWC), or its prior equivalent, and initiate a claim. This paper breaks new ground by shedding light on the real-world implications of these dismissals, highlighting the need for effective HRM and workplace employment relations policies and practices, and ongoing support systems to mitigate unfair dismissal occurrences and impacts.
The remainder of this paper is structured into five sections. The first section provides a literature review discussing unfair dismissal in the Australian context and relevant theoretical perspectives. The second section describes the qualitative methodology, data collection, and the use of reflective thematic analysis (RTA). In the third section, we present the findings in the form of the ‘locus of harm’ framework, which emerged as the cohesive narrative from the RTA, utilising evidence from the participants’ experiences to support this framework. The fourth section discusses the value of the ‘locus of harm’ framework, acknowledges the study's limitations, and suggests areas for future research. Finally, we conclude by highlighting that workers often face the personal trauma and broader harms of unfair dismissal alone, underscoring the important role of supportive stakeholders, and the urgent need for employers to ensure justice and fairness in their dismissal decisions.
Literature
This review first examines the extent of unfair dismissal among Australian workers, and how scholars have studied this phenomenon in the Australian context. Next, we theoretically anchor this paper and consider how job loss impacts a person's work-related identity and non-work identity, and how job loss can burden them with emotion residue and scarring. These theories provide the foundation to explore the harms that unfair dismissals can inflict upon dismissed employees.
Unfair dismissal in the Australian context
Collins (2021: 36) noted that employment courts and tribunals are increasingly recognising the ‘major adverse effects or consequences caused by dismissals to an employee's family life, personal and professional relationships, to self-respect, and to their chosen way of life and career’. In Australia, the FWC plays a crucial role in providing employment protection and justice mechanisms that aim to mitigate the adverse effects of unfair dismissal. In essence, the FWC provides a range of structured and impartial processes, such as conciliation, determinative hearings with a FWC commissioner, and an appeal process, designed for resolving dismissal disputes raised by individual employees. Subject to the details of each case, these functions may alleviate some of the harms an employee experiences from a dismissal, including payment for lost wages or job reinstatement. However, these processes are not without their challenges. Employees risk experiencing additional stress during the proceedings, and public scrutiny in the case of arbitration. With arbitration, an employee may find themselves in the unenviable position of having the details of their dismissal made public, including whether or not their claim was successful.
In their most recent reporting period in 2023–2024, the FWC announced that it received 14,772 unfair dismissal claims and 5477 general protection applications involving unlawful dismissal (FWC, 2024a). These statistics show that assisting employers and employees to settle dismissal disputes consumes a considerable amount of the Commission's time and resources. These statistics also point to deeper issues at play in organisations, such as dysfunctional workplace cultures (Daniel, 2020), problematic managerial prerogative (Collins, 2022; Shellum, 2017), and problematic employees (Southey, 2016). Furthermore, these FWC statistics under-represent the extent of involuntary and potentially unfair dismissals that are occurring as they do not capture, for instance, workers who are not employed by a national system employer, missed lodgements outside 21 days (FWC, 2024c), or ‘employee-like’ workers in the gig economy and independent contractors (Pittard, 2022), noting that the Closing Loopholes Legislation 2023–2025 seeks to address these latter two issues (FWC, 2024b). Then, there are the dismissed workers who are not aware of, or choose not to access, the FWC services, particularly non-union workers who may not have the requisite knowledge of their rights and opportunities for tribunal assistance. In summary, many thousands of broken employment relationships continue to occur each year across Australia's workforce, exposing people from both sides of the dispute to the unpleasantness and trauma that an employee dismissal inevitably invites. This ongoing issue justifies this study's focus as unfair dismissal can impact the mental health and well-being of Australian workers, as well as have broader social and economic implications for the nation.
The available research on unfair dismissals within Australia has characteristically focused on analysing existing tribunal decision-making data, using secondary source data from decisions, websites, and annual reports produced for public scrutiny by government organisations, such as the FWC, on unfair dismissal decisions and processes (Freyens and Gong 2020; Freyens and Oslington 2021; Gardiner and Dubrulee 2023; See et al. 2022; Southey 2008, 2014). These authors have compared outcomes such as the number of claims lodged, probabilities of success, and compensation awards to dismissed employees across different legislative periods: the Workplace Relations Act 1993–2006, WorkChoices 2006–2009, and the Fair Work Act 2009. Similarly, the research interests reflected in Southey (2010, 2016), Southey et al. (2023), Freyens and Gong (2017), and Chelliah and D’Netto (2006), make use of publicly available federal tribunal decisions to identify case factors correlated with outcomes of unfair dismissal arbitration decisions and probabilities of success. Meanwhile, there is literature published semi-regularly by industrial relations and legal scholars, analysing, debating and comparing the legislative and governance issues of Australia's unfair dismissal protections along with the industry, social and economic impacts of such governmental regulation (Chapman, 2009; Freyens and Oslington, 2007, 2013; Hardy and Kelly, 2022; Minas and French, 2024; Pittard, 2022; Shi and Zhong, 2018; Southey, 2015; Southey and Fry, 2012; Stewart, 2011; Thornthwaite, 2018). Besides this scholarly debate and opinion, much of the contemporary research on unfair dismissals has been produced in the form of political and legal academic debate or by using quantitative techniques. However, few studies, if any, in the industrial relations and human resource management literature explore the human dimension of being unfairly dismissed using qualitative methods, such as phenomenological inquiry or thematic analysis. This paper presents a groundbreaking study describing the lived experience of unfair dismissal among Australian workers, and the types and sources of harm that it inflicted on them.
Work-related identity, non-work identity and job loss
Lord Hoffman's famous quote from Johnson v Unisys Ltd (2001) UKHL 13, [35] encapsulates the profound impact of employment on a person's identity: It has been recognised that a person's employment is usually one of the most important things in his or her life. It gives not only a livelihood but an occupation, an identity and a sense of self-esteem. The law has changed to recognise this social reality.
This means that legal frameworks and judicial decisions have evolved to acknowledge the significant role that employment plays in an individual's life. Employment is valued not only as a source of income but also as a key component of identity, self-esteem, and social status. Consequently, laws and legal interpretations have been adapted to better protect employees’ rights and address the broader impacts of job loss. This insight sets the stage for discussing how job loss affects both work-related and non-work identities.
An ‘identity’ provides positive mental models that people use to attach meaning to a particular role and interpret experiences related to that role (Miscenko and Day, 2016). Each person has multiple identities. Personal experiences, traits and preferences, social, community, and political contexts, cultural background, education, and media exposure will shape their non-work identity; and significantly for many, their occupation, workgroup and employing organisation facilitate their work-related identity (Caprar et al., 2022). Dutton et al. (2010: 226) define work-related identity as ‘aspects of identity and self-definition that are tied to participation in the activities of work … or membership in work-related groups, organizations, occupations, or professions’. Dutton et al. (2010) suggest that work-related identity contributes to personal satisfaction and provides the worker with a sense of meaningfulness. More recent developments in the work identity literature suggest that a person's work identity may be innately fluid and dynamic, responding to their need to navigate the precarious nature of contemporary labour markets and multiple careers (Castelló et al., 2021; Li and Horta, 2024). The fluidity concept poses an alternative view to the ‘identity transition’ concept that requires the old identity to end in order to be replaced by a new identity (Castelló et al., 2021). In either approach, dismissed workers are likely to experience significant identity trauma, necessitating coping and adjustment mechanisms.
Individuals constantly balance the degree to which their personal identity, or non-work identity, is defined by work versus non-work life. According to Ramarajan and Reid (2013), changes in one's work life impact, even destabilise one's non-work identities due to the integration of work identity and non-work roles (Ramarajan and Reid, 2013). Liu et al. (2020) also recognise that external events, such as job loss, that break the work-related identity create a gap between the worker's actual self and the ideal self. Thus, given that changes in one identity domain are believed to affect another, it is possible that the disruption or erosion a dismissed employee might experience to their work identity will alter the relationship with their non-work identity. For example, a loss of work identity can interfere with one's personal identity as a capable provider for the family. Non-work identities are also likely to become more significant when one's work-related identity is disrupted. Here, for instance, a dismissed worker may need to turn to their social networks to find new work, or source a new sense of meaning and purpose from aspects of their non-work identities (Ramarajan and Reid, 2013).
Research by Conroy and O'leary-Kelly (2014) focused on how work-related identity loss interrupts one's existing identity and the need to create a new self through sense-making and emotional regulation. In essence, they researched how workers let go of their old work identity and move on to the new (Conroy and O'leary-Kelly, 2014), introducing the concept of ‘emotion residue’, where the loss-related emotions from work-related identity shape the worker's ‘new’ identity as part of recovery. That is, the initial effects of the job loss may settle, yet the residual emotions can linger and affect the person's ability to move forward. Thus, they propose that a worker's identity transition can occur from one of two perspectives. First, a worker can have an ‘uncomplicated progression’ driven by a restorative orientation towards their world of work where they are ‘forward looking, striving to determine who they will become (prospective)’ (Conroy and O'leary-Kelly, 2014: 77). Here, individuals have potential for significant growth and positive identity development (Conroy and O'leary-Kelly, 2014: 83). Alternatively, workers can have a more complicated progression with emotion residue where the worker has a loss-orientation that is ‘focused on the past, putting to bed that lost self (retrospective)’ (Conroy and O'leary-Kelly, 2014: 77). In these situations, the workers are at risk of missed growth opportunities, losing connections and self-stagnation.
There is vast literature on the scarring effects of unemployment, with Filomena (2024) referring to scarring as the long-term detrimental effects of unemployment on a person's future job prospects and earnings. Filomena (2024: 461) notes ‘the scarring effect of unemployment on future outcomes is important from a societal perspective, as it informs whether the social cost of unemployment extends beyond the period in which it is experienced’. In summary, acknowledging that people have work-related and non-work identities, and that they may need to navigate some form of re-identification, emotion residue and scarring from the dismissal, are key assumptions we use to underpin our analysis exploring the origin of the harms that are caused to unfairly dismissed workers and more widely to society.
Methodology
The data were collected during 2023 via individual, semi-structured interviews with two participant groups. First, 14 participants in Group A consisted of Australian workers who had experienced an involuntary dismissal that they believed was unjust/unfair, and who were motivated to, as a minimum, lodge an unfair dismissal claim within any of Australia's industrial tribunals, commissions or courts. These people were recruited by direct contact via approximately 1600 emails to legal firms, unions, and community organisations seeking participants. Table 1 profiles Group A.
Group A participant profile – dismissed workers.
Settled prior to conciliation.
Settled by arbitration.
Settled by conciliation.
The experiences described by the Group A participants were further explored via interviews with six Group B participants consisting of worker representatives/legal support after targeted recruitment from unions and legal firms experienced in advocating for employee rights in relation to unfair dismissal. These participants were recruited via an initial personal contact of the primary researcher, followed by snowballing. Table 2 summarises the second participant group.
Group B participant profile – legal advocate/support workers.
All interviews for both groups were conducted over Zoom, recorded and transcribed. These twenty interviews generated more than 250,000 words of interview data. Pseudonyms are used and potentially identifiable information removed, to protect the participants’ identities in this paper.
A qualitative methodology with a RTA was used to explore the data. In broad terms, a thematic analysis (TA) allows researchers to systematically identify meaningful patterns across a data set, to allow them to ‘see’ and make sense of shared experiences (Braun and Clarke, 2012: 57). Braun and Clarke (2021b: 210) describe the researcher as ‘an archaeologist, excavating meaning from data … that meaning resides at the intersection of the data and the researcher's contextual and theoretically embedded interpretative practices’. More specifically, the RTA approach requires iterative passes across the data, revising and refining meaningful, connectable themes, or as described by several scholars ‘chapters in a broader story … [that] have meaning in relation to other themes’ (Braun and Clarke, 2021b: 210; Kerr et al. 2010; Sim et al. 2018). Commonly occurring issues captured in the data should not necessarily dominate, as they may not be necessarily meaningful or important, and neither are those one-off, yet extraordinary statements or experiences (Braun and Clarke, 2012: 57). Instead, the aim is to find the stories between these two extremes, seeking meaningful insights that reveal the subtleties and complexities in the participants’ narratives. Therefore, our goal with the RTA was to build an informed yet generalised understanding of how the unfair dismissal phenomenon harms workers.
RTA is authentically interpretive, rejecting positivist notions of researcher bias that can filter into other variants of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2023: 2). Braun and Clarke (2021b) explain that in RTA, finding new keywords/phrases, or ‘coding’ will never reach a clear and official endpoint, that is, data saturation is not the aim. Instead, ‘the researcher makes a situated, interpretative judgement about when to stop coding and move to theme generation, and when to stop theme generation and mapping thematic relationships, to finalise the written report’ (Braun and Clarke, 2021b: 210). Therefore, the RTA approach is not to be confused with elements that are used in positivist-leaning approaches to TA such as codebook TA or coding reliability TA (Braun and Clarke, 2021a, 2021b, 2023). These approaches seek, for instance, a minimum number of participants, achieving data saturation, creating coding books, using multiple coders and demonstrating inter-coder agreement to minimise the researcher's influence. Such elements run counter to the values and practices of Braun and Clarke's (2023: 4) ‘artfully interpretative’ RTA method, as used in this study.
Thus, the initial rounds of meaning-making with the data were conducted by David Martin, as per Braun and Clarke's RTA approach (2012, 2022, 2024). The first rounds of sense-making relied on obtaining semantic, explicit understandings to summarise the dismissal experiences. During these rounds, NVivo software was used for retaining transcripts, managing and subsequently refining the proliferation of codes consisting of keywords and phrases and smaller themes that were created during the reading and interpreting of each transcript. Next, both authors collaborated as ‘critical friends’ (Braun and Clarke, 2024: 11), combining the smaller themes for deeper meaning and shifting the analysis towards appreciating the latent knowledge in the themes developed by the first author. This resulted in a cohesive, packaged story from the themes.
Reflexive thematic analysis output
Evidence of the participants’ lived experiences, and the narrative we created from these experiences are presented and discussed below under the ‘locus of harm’ framework.
Locus of harm: institutional and identity
Based on the analysis of the participants’ experiences, two principal ‘locus of harm’ dimensions were created: an institutional locus of harm and an identity locus of harm. Both themes represent injustices that the workers emphasised and/or wrestled with as they processed and/or recovered from their unfair dismissal experiences. However, institutional locus of harm arises from the organisational or systemic context in which the dismissal event occurs and is further classified into harms rooted in organisational toxicity, HRM system failures, and managerial gaslighting. Whereas the identity locus of harm represents an array of harms to the work-related and non-work identities that the individual faces upon ejection from the organisation. The identity locus of harm is further classified into harms arising from reputational damage, material damage, and psychosocial injury. Table 3 presents these themes formulated into the ‘locus of harm’ framework.
Summary of unfair dismissal ‘locus of harm’ components.
Source: Developed by authors.
Table 3 displays a profile of each locus of harm, for which we first note the temporal element of when these harms occur, to provide a further distinguishing feature between institutional and identity locus of harm. It is important to acknowledge the temporal nature of the harms as it depicts the ‘unfolding’ of the dismissal experience. Table 3 also displays the agents, that is, the people or institutions associated with the locus of harm. The agents of institutional harm are invariably found within members of the employing organisation. Meanwhile, the agents of identity harm broadens to include a number of actors outside the employer. Identifying the actors involved in the source of institutional harm helps to improve accountability, develop targeted interventions against harmful behaviours, and improve policy and procedures to minimise continued occurrences and improve the workplace culture. Likewise, awareness of the actors associated with identity harm provides scope for better informed, targeted interventions. Finally, indications of these harms are provided in Table 3 to illustrate their nature as ascertained from the participants’ experiences and are discussed next.
Institutional locus of harm
The institutional locus of harm is temporally situated at pre-dismissal and during dismissal, with any remaining emotion residue from these harms, for example, lingering distress caused by the workplace toxicity, or disdain for the organisation due to a sense of injustice, folding into the components of the identity-related harms that workers encounter post-dismissal. The narratives provided by the participants invoked a range of agents associated with these harms, with the commonality that they are directly associated with their workplace.
Organisational toxicity
Many of the Group A participants expressed that they were working in a toxic culture prior to their dismissal, describing workplace-inflicted harms such as being maliciously manipulated, undermined and bullied. … people feel like they have to break you down and knock you down a peg. (Jason) My role there, the whole time I was there, I was being white-anted. (James)
Over half the Group A participants had described incidents of being bullied, which some believe was at the root of their dismissal. One Group A participant recounted an outburst from their manager. … [he] told me to my face you shouldn’t be here, we don’t want you here. He was blatant. Who the hell are you we don’t want you. [Manager] was supposed to be there as my mentor training, he never showed up. That was a deliberate act on his behalf.– (James) I was being bullied and harassed by email. Constantly with letters and documents and all of these things while I was sick. (Joy)
Group A participants also described being excluded and feeling isolated in the workplace, to the point it interfered with them being able to perform their job. Being ‘excluded’ is another form of bullying and experiences included: The people that were supporting me were asked not to attend [my] staff meetings anymore. (Jason) They were all made to, by this person, told not to answer my phone calls.– (Arianna)
As part of experiencing this isolation, some participants described that they became sensitive or paranoid about how colleagues in the workplace reacted toward them prior to being dismissed. I thought they were just being sorry for me and then whispering behind my back. I was totally paranoid. (Alice)
This situation where Group A participants discussed being isolated and bullied by their managers was corroborated by Group B participants. Some of the Group B participants acknowledged that the source of bullying often came from the dismissed worker's direct manager. Where I've seen the most devastation from people is where they've been bullied and it's normally it's by a manager, normally, it's not normally a colleague. (Aiden)
There was also evidence that the dismissed workers felt they were an organisational misfit because the workplace culture did not align with their principles and personal values. … there was a mismatch between what they wanted and what they got with me … It was very much run in favour of a select group though. And that didn't include women. (Melanie) But to have a game of golf with fellas in the management on every Saturday afternoon, it's not on my radar. Because I want to be with my family on Saturday afternoons, right. That did go against me. (Joseph) … because I go to church and I am a Christian, I copped quite a lot of flak from [Direct Manger]. (Max)
HRM system failures
This locus of harm component refers to the inability of the organisation to develop adequate HRM systems and processes to manage the quality of work and conditions of its people. This inefficiency was evident prior to the dismissal and/or became evident as the employer fumbled through the dismissal process per se. For instance, there were Group A participants who described being mismanaged in the lead-up to their dismissal by not having role clarity, being made to apply for different roles, arbitrary changes in management reporting, and poor job design such as reporting to different managers for different components of their job. Daniel described how he was confused about his job role preceding his dismissal: I found myself getting pushed along the lines of doing the other side of the business without actually doing my original role.– (Daniel)
The inadequacy of performance management (PM) processes was commonly mentioned by Group A participants. It was mostly in the context that PM was either ad hoc or totally absent, reflecting a weakness in HRM's strategic oversight and operationalisation of PM. Joy described that her first and only performance review meeting was the one used to support her dismissal: Sometimes you're trucking along as a, you know, valued employee, because nothing's actually ever been said to you and you're just left on your own to continue on doing the work that you're doing with no feedback, you know, no performance review, no nothing. And then all of a sudden, yes, you get to this point where they drag you into a meeting. (Joy)
Daniel described how he felt that the PM process was weaponised against him: They turned it from me informing him or the company what had gone on, to continuing on like a performance managing thing. And then they try and measure you afterwards, they were trying to performance manage me out of my role. (Daniel)
Some Group B participants noted that they do not get to see many unfair dismissal cases that involve underperformance. They thought that this was due to the difficulty in not only administering a PM process, but to also use it effectively to improve employee performance or use it to justifiably dismiss an employee for underperformance. I don't really get that many performance dismissals … probably because it's harder to sort of, for a company to do it properly to get to that point anyway. They normally tend to just go for misconduct. (Sophia) Performance ones I've found to actually be some of the most difficult ones … (Sarah)
Further evidence of HRM system failures extends to poorly handled terminations that harm employees with all Group A participants expressing that the administration of their dismissal was inappropriately handled by their respective organisations. … they hit me on performance related, sort of list of accusations and stood me down, marched me off the site. And then sat at home for two months, waiting to hear.– (Jason)
To this end, Group A participants talked about aspects in their dismissal experiences that commonly reflect a perception that the employer failed to provide procedural justice as part of a robust dismissal process. Procedural justice requires an organisation to implement fair decision-making processes characterised by consistency, suppressed bias, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). Deficiencies in procedural justice described by the dismissed workers were at times brought about by exposure to inexperienced managers with a lack of HRM/IR expertise actioning the dismissal : And I guess that professionalism wasn't there. This lady believed that because I was a casual employee and she had no obligations to give me notice.- (Arianna) … they seemed out of their depth on what they were doing. (Max)
Group B participants also provided views on the competence of managers that had instigated an unfair dismissal that they had encountered. I see some of the most procedurally, you know, obvious things and I go oh, how could they have stuffed that up? How could they have stuffed that up?. (Victoria)
There were Group A participants who were unexpectedly dismissed without notice, further indicating a lack of procedural justice. [he] told me I … I was sacked. And when I asked why, he couldn't give me an answer other than I've done a review of my position and I wasn't performing. (Alice) I received a letter terminating me. I didn't have a meeting; I didn't have anything…. I was terminated effectively that day.– (Arianna)
Interactional justice involves the quality of interpersonal treatment during organisational procedures, including respectful and dignified behaviour by supervisors towards employees (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). One Group A participant, Lucas, described how he had no idea he was facing an impending dismissal and had ridden their bicycle to work on the day they were unexpectedly dismissed. They had to call an acquaintance to come and pick up their belongings from the workplace. The lack of regard management showed for ensuring Lucas was right to get home with his belongings, is an example of subtle yet undignified treatment associated with poor interactional justice.
Managerial gaslighting
The temporal space for managerial gaslighting is primarily during the administration of the dismissal event. Fundamental to any unfair dismissal case is the reason for the dismissal, and this locus of harm component relates to the reason management gives the employee to justify their dismissal. Group A participants felt the reason they were given was either grossly inaccurate or completely fabricated. The use of the term ‘gaslighting’ was provided by one of the Group A participants, Daniel, who described his ‘forced resignation’, indicating he experienced a constructive dismissal, and how: They made it – they made it sound like it was my choice [to resign]. (Daniel)
As a further example, Jack felt that his redundancy was a cover for the fact that he had made a Workcover claim from a crush injury to his foot some weeks earlier in the workplace. On that note, a Group B participant had witnessed employers taking advantage of the unfair dismissal redundancy provisions. I've also seen workers made redundant and once they have passed the 21 days to lodge an unfair dismissal, the employer then re-hires someone else. (Gavin)
Group A participants expected their employers to furnish them with sound evidence to support the dismissal, such as records of conversation, performance improvement plans, statements, or any other tangible articles that would support the reasons for a legitimate dismissal. Typically, they indicated that evidence was not provided, despite asking for it. I had actually requested copies of my meetings with him. I wanted to see written copies of all these meetings, and they wouldn’t provide them. (Daniel) … so I wasn’t performing? Tell me where are all the reports? Where was my report? What areas was I falling down? (James)
Additionally, Group B participants also advised that they have found that employers can be remiss when it comes producing and providing evidence to support their reasons for and decision to dismiss workers. So, the fourth strike, third strike, you're out the door where, hang on a minute when did this one happen? Again, where where's the paperwork for it? Oh, we don't have it. (Liam)
When Group A participants were provided with documentation that the employer considered would substantiate the dismissal, it would contain errors or lack rigor. … he just copied and pasted my report from somebody else. (Emma) … they couldn't prove that I wasn't doing my job.– (Alice)
Group B participants also made mention that employers involved in unfair dismissals typically produced a lack of evidence, or evidence that was ‘sloppy’ and inconsistent. … they have very nice policy manuals that are written really well and cover areas very well, and they just don't follow them.– (Aiden) … there was a complaint made in the workplace yet there's no evidence that it was her. (Gavin)
Most concerning is the fabrication of evidence, discussed by another Group B participant, who indicated that they have encountered instances of dishonesty on the employer's part. … you get managers that are prepared to blatantly lie. Now we've caught out a few actually, in unfair dismissal hearings where they've actually had to tell the truth and they get exposed. (Jason)
There were experiences of evidence ‘witch-hunting’ with suspicions described among Group A participants that the employer had become aware, at the time of an unfair dismissal claim being lodged, that they did not have adequate evidence to substantiate the dismissal and felt that employers put significant effort into ‘digging up’ evidence to protect themselves from the consequences of unfairly dismissing a worker. Typically, it seemed the easiest way to do this was to review documented employee actions or emails and look for anything that could be construed as non-compliance with company procedures, which then could substantiate an allegation of misconduct. … there was no grounds for dismissal, but we now say that we’ve since discovered all this other stuff.– (Lucas)
Group B participants had provided similar responses that supported the Group A participants’ suspicions or perceptions of a ‘witch-hunt’ for suitable evidence that leads to a meandering of allegations. And it's like they're, they're always predicated on a finding a fact. You know, in one of the other allegations and sometimes they find all these allegations unsupported. But then they support, they find this other allegation, you know, they say, oh, we, we found that substantiated it. (Aiden)
All the Group A participants felt that there was either insufficient or irrelevant evidence at the time of their unfair dismissal to substantiate the dismissal. This increased their sense of injustice, and producing evidence after the fact was seen as the employer having an unfair advantage.
Identity locus of harm
The identity locus of harm temporally spans from pre-dismissal to post-dismissal. While the reputational damage and material damage components of the identity locus of harm occur post-dismissal, the psychosocial injury component can occur simultaneously with the institutional harm associated with the organisational toxicity, HRM system failures, and managerial gaslighting that was inflicted on them prior to their dismissal from the organisation's employment. The participants’ narratives invoked a range of agents associated with the identity locus of harm, moving beyond the work-related agents to include a range of family and social actors and institutions with impacts on both their work-related and non-work identities.
Reputational damage
Group A participants commonly highlighted the importance of their professional reputation as a component of their careers and the value they placed on gaining a reference. These concerns seemed to be underpinned by worries about not being able to explain a break in their career timeline or not being able to provide a reference from a previous employer, and what these meant to their future career opportunities. So, if you can't get a reference from the place that just sacked you [or] the workers that you've worked with, they can't give you a reference, and maybe they've been directed to not even talk to you, it then makes it hard reputationally to get another job. (Sarah) … that was my biggest concern was that [my dismissal] would get out somehow. (James) … to have your dignity shredded and your reputation basically trashed. It's more than money here. It's people's reputations, it's their career reputations. (Joseph)
Group A participants worried about the lifelong career vestige of being labelled as a person who was dismissed for a nefarious reason, particularly for those people employed in smaller industry segments and regional and rural communities: … didn't want my name being blacklisted as you know.– (June) I felt that tarnished, my relationship with other companies and my reputation as well. (Daniel) … I just remember being so stressed about, like, who the hell's gonna wanna take me now? (Jason)
For some of the Group A participants, the effort to mitigate reputational deterioration drove them to relocate: But I was really concerned that if I stayed in [geographical location], they would hear my name come up and block any opportunity for me. (Elizabeth)
It was important to them that their co-workers did not perceive they had engaged in any wrongdoing to warrant a dismissal, and some harboured fears that people would create and spread stories about why they were dismissed. … and the little untruths to that, that he leaked if you like. There was innuendos that we might have been having an affair … So, I was unemployable. (Alice) … my staff will go home and tell all their relatives what happened. (Joseph) … you must have stolen something…, you must have been embezzling money and then these stories come out. (Jason)
There were Group A participants who found the impact of losing their work network to be a significant component of their reputational trauma: They didn't want to know me. I even went into the into the office after I won the unfair dismissal case to chat with some of my mates and they wouldn't, they wouldn't come to the counter and talk to me. I was shunned. (Joseph)
The lost work connections extended to broader professional networks and social media platforms such as LinkedIn. This is intertwined with why participants pursued an unfair dismissal claim, based on their concern and protection of their reputation with industry networks, aware that their subsequent employment would rely on these connections. I've lost my, LinkedIn people and peers in the industry. (Joseph) I don't have any of those [LinkedIn/social media] connections anymore. (Jason)
Exclusionary behaviours also extended to threats to the dismissed workers, where they were told at the time of their dismissal that they would never get work in that industry again. This threat was also perceived to be in effect where they experienced isolation from industry peers prior to their dismissal. … was told I wouldn’t get a job with the [Industry] again. No one we worked with, or for, kind of or use to work for, wanted to be involved. (Max) No one was talking to me from the people that I knew. (Arianna)
A Group A participant reflecting on their experience said that even though they had effectively protected their reputation within their industry by pursuing an unfair dismissal claim, it did come with some consequences. … even though what I would categorise as a win at the [arbitration] outcome, I think that meant that I walked away with those bridges well and truly engulfed in flames. (Lucas)
One Group B participant described the risk to the worker's reputation when seeking an arbitration decision from the FWC, highlighting that anyone can simply search the internet and find details of the case relating to a worker's unfair dismissal if they pursue their claim to a binding decision. … your name will be on the public record … you can get orders for the, you know, for their identity to be suppressed, but they're pretty extraordinary. The Commission is not very sympathetic to those sorts of you know, things. (Aiden)
Group B participants also stated their views that the dismissed workers in regional and rural areas had higher reputational risk than their city counterparts due to limited job opportunities in their respective fields. The Group B participants also noted that they had seen dismissed workers face a term of unemployment after dismissal, that they thought may be related to their damaged reputation. All Group B participants shared similar views around the value of protecting the worker's reputation.
Material damage
Material damage refers to tangible, physical, and/or quantifiable losses that a person suffers as a result of being unfairly dismissed. These damages include, but are not limited to, matters such as income and lifestyle changes, taking lower-paid work, retiring prematurely, financial debt, and physical relocation with implications that impact their work and non-work identities. The impact of the unexpected reduction in income reaches to many aspects of workers’ daily lives, and in this case, Emma was forced to forego measures to maintain her levels of health and well-being: I've been working since I was 15 and all of a sudden, I'm out of work and there's no excuse me, there's no money coming in and what am I going to do. And I went to the chemist to get the antidepressants and they weren't - they didn't - come under the PBS scheme, they were about $60 or something and I just, oh no that that's, and I started to cry you know, I got all tearful and I ran out of the shop. (Emma)
Group A participants described how they typically took lower-paid work, or returned to a previous career role, or even retired prematurely to access superannuation. Those participants who held professional positions described going back to roles that they were employed in during the early phases of their careers. This included roles like truck driving, working as a farmhand or doing lower-skilled work such as domestic work in family-owned businesses in motels, or in hospitals. I was thinking, shit, I am going to have to go back, tail between my legs as an [junior role] or something. Just to pay the bills.– (Lucas) And I got another job that paid a lot less. You know, my income went down by at least 20,000. (Emma) Also, my superannuation has been quite severely impacted. I've been living off my superannuation. (Joseph)
Group A participants also described how they had to reduce their lifestyles to match their lower income. For some, this meant having to sell assets, such as their car. Others described how they struggled to find housing: I was struggling to find somewhere to live. I moved around and, you know, stayed with some very generous friends and relatives. (Melanie)
Taking lesser paid roles was also described as a typical course of action that some of the Group B participants witnessed in unfairly dismissed workers. Group B participants explained how the impact of an unfair dismissal also affects their family members, such as the dismissed worker having to relocate for work, separating from the family unit. One Group B participant provided the following in regard to the impact the unfair dismissal has on the family unit. … devastating to their life and their marriage has broken down post-dismissal. (Aiden)
Psychosocial Injury
Psychosocial injury is a broad concept that encompasses psychological and social stressors triggered by the unfair dismissal, affecting the worker's mental health and well-being. These types of damages are more subjective and difficult to quantify, compared to material damages. The pervasive nature of psychosocial injury means that it has the potential to be present continuously with a temporal span that exists pre-dismissal through to post-dismissal. Group A participants described a range of negative memories related to having once worked in a toxic workplace that included for instance, being bullied, excluded, betrayed, and experiencing injustice, vulnerability, powerlessness, fear, frustration and anger. Narratives such as these represent the psychological impact of organisational toxicity, HRM system failures, and managerial gaslighting. For example, the sheer humiliation and shame of being escorted in a frog-march fashion off the premises: Upon entering the office, two security personnel were waiting for me in front of all my staff. They advised me not to approach my desk or computer. But to leave the computer on. They said I was only permitted to pick up my bag and coat and leave. There was still a warm mug of coffee on my desk. My 11 staff watched on, one woman crying. I was denied any approach to her and was swiftly escorted out of the building. My personal folders and family photos that were on my desk were left behind. And I never got those. (Joseph)
A Group B participant also noted that the handling of the dismissal can be psychologically traumatic for the dismissed worker. And I don't think any of them think they're going to be frog-marched out the door with their possessions in a box, you know, so it's devastating for people. (Aiden)
Once ejected from their workplace, the ensuing rejection can be inflamed by the isolation from their work colleagues, whereby some Group A participants described being instantly cut off from their peers: Because they knew if they maintained any sort of communication or relationship with me then they would be - you know - next on the chopping block sort of thing. Yeah, it absolutely isolated me. (Lucas)
Some reported that as part of their unfair dismissal settlement, they had to agree to have no contact with other people working within their industry. Others reported the feelings of shame and embarrassment led them to withdraw from their community and professional contacts, that is, exacting a self-imposed isolation. Three years I wouldn’t, basically didn’t come out of my house. (Joseph)
While others discussed how much they lost their sense of self because their work-related identity was strongly tied to the job they were dismissed from: … one thing that I didn't count on that I hadn't realised is that job was really my identity. I had lost that identity … I don't feel confident that I could ever pursue that career now. So yeah, it closed all the doors.(Jason) … it's made like a horrific wound in my self-confidence. Yeah, and I lost a huge part of my identity as well. (Elizabeth)
Group B participants corroborated the sentiments around lost social connections and the impact that it has on the dismissed worker and the effect it has on their social interactions with others where it is common to talk about what one does for a living. Those who have been unfairly dismissed often feel that they cannot fully or truthfully reveal their career history to avoid disclosing that they were involved in an unfair dismissal. … that's often your first social encounters with people. So, I suppose now an element of your life is now taken away from you. (Gavin)
The experience of feeling betrayed by colleagues was further corroborated and explained by several Group B participants who raised how co-workers may be called on as witnesses before a commissioner in an unfair dismissal claim. They described circumstances where co-workers may have given the dismissed worker the impression that they are fully supportive and are in total agreement with the injustice imposed on the dismissed worker. Their position, however, changes at some later point when these co-workers are called before a tribunal as witnesses expected to testify against their current employers. And the reality is, those workers have just seen one of their colleagues sacked, so they're not going to speak out. (Sarah) Well, they think everyone's on their side until they start asking them to do witness statements. (Gavin)
In the weeks and months following the unfair dismissal, there were Group A participants who had difficulties recounting what they had done during this time, citing that the trauma at the time made it difficult for them to recall that period of their life. Around half of the Group A participants referred to being affected by depression because of their unfair dismissal and it appeared to impact their ability to function for some time following their dismissal. I was never able to work again. And without the reference, without any references and I developed within 12 months of being dismissed I developed PTSD. And was diagnosed with that. So that made it hard, very difficult for me to mentally to get back together. … I was unable to work at all. I just found it hard to get out of bed in the morning. I've lost interest in a number of my hobbies. I was depressed, suffering depression…– (Joseph) It was very hard because I was very, very upset, very emotional. And went into, you know, great depression. I just spiralled into a deep depression. (Emma)
The lingering impacts of these psychosocial harms resulted in some Group A participants despising their ex-employer and avoiding the use of their products or services. Some exhibited deep-seated feelings of anger and disgust towards their ex-employer despite it being many years after the event. Feelings of anxiety, stress, shame and a loss of confidence and self-worth were described by Group A participants: … two kids, mortgage, between anxiety you know, what happens if the work stops, what am I going to do. (Lucas) I get upset about it now thinking about it. And that was physically making me sick… I’m not angry, I'm just, I just feel very numb about it all, you know, I mean, very, very numb. … I want a long-term strategy of how to get rid of some of the feelings that I've got, and I'm almost ashamed and embarrassed to feel happy a lot of the time as well. I feel guilty if I'm happy. (Jason) I had lost all confidence in myself. I lost all belief in myself. I didn't believe that I could do the simplest of tasks because I've been told I couldn't by, by, someone whom I respected, and from my coworkers. There was no value in whatever I had done. (Alice)
Many of the Group A participants also described feeling varying levels of anger and a lack of closure: I didn't have closure, I ran away. I would like to sit with [Manager] and say can we just go back and can you really, just be really honest with me and say what the hell went on? What, what was the problem?. (Alice) I was really, really angry for a really long time. I don't think I ever got sad about it. It was more just like the anger at the injustice. (Elizabeth) … people you are working with admitted guilt and you are still the one at fault, and it's really hard to get over that. (Max)
The Group B participants all shared their observations about how they typically meet with unfairly dismissed workers at a point in time when the worker is feeling the greatest sense of anger at their felt injustice. Not everyone does, but, but definitely people will get very stuck in the anger and just wanting to take everyone down. (Sarah)
One Group B participant described how they have seen at times, the desire for revenge manifest in the workers they supported through an unfair dismissal. … they want to bash the employer in some way, ‘metaphorically bash them’. (Gavin)
Group B participants also provided their observations and advice to workers when they detected that revenge was the motivation for pursuing an unfair dismissal application. And when they say I want revenge, you go no, sorry. You've come to a jurisdiction that can only offer you compensation or reinstatement. (Liam)
However, the Group A participants typically described their reasons for being motivated to pursue an unfair dismissal application were in order to stem ‘the damage’ and to restore their reputation. I think one of the reasons why I pursued the unfair dismissal was because I wanted some um, protections from being badmouthed. (Lucas) … the untruths that was the thing that was the driver. (Joy)
When dismissed workers do find new work, it was not uncommon for them to describe how they have doubts about their competence to perform and continually fear for their job security: … now I am in a situation where I want to be and I really love the job, but I am struggling to perform, so that little bloody seed of bloody doubt was in my mind I can tell you. Mate it was eating me at times I was getting really stressed. (James) … painfully aware, anytime anyone like says my name or, you know, comes, sends me an email or comes into any office that, I mean I'm like, Oh, they know they know now. I am concerned that something like this will happen again. (Elizabeth)
And, as a final observation, psychosocial injury also manifests through strained family and personal relationships arising from the stress or changes that happened due to the unfair dismissal. … then my wife and daughter said like you were just, you're a horrible person for about a year, because you're just so stressed all the time. (Jason)
Discussion
The themes identified in the participants’ experiences highlight the serious implications of involuntary job loss and unemployment, reinforcing previous research on its disruptive impacts on psychological, physiological, and social functioning (Arena et al., 2022; Lent et al., 2023; Paul and Moser, 2009; Thompson et al., 2016). Our ‘locus of harm’ framework consolidates and further extends these insights by incorporating the culpable employer behaviours leading up to and during the administering of the dismissal. It is essential to incorporate employer behaviours because it is the employer who determines the reason for the dismissal, which, according to Collins (2022), provides the pivotal and decisive element of an unfair dismissal case. The locus of harm framework fills in further detail surrounding the employer's pivotal decision, by drawing attention to the organisational toxicity, HRM system failures, and managerial gaslighting that typify the institutional locus of harm. In their article about unfair dismissal in the UK, Collins (2022) notes the lack of research regarding the substantiality of employers’ reasons for a dismissal. Collins (2022: 598) further suggests that the absence of substantiality and severity ‘thresholds’ hinders tribunals in assessing dismissals, risking that minor misconduct or weak business cases for a redundancy can be deemed fair. Thus, given the potential harms that employers can inflict on dismissed workers, and the challenges faced by employment tribunals in balancing employer prerogative with worker protections, the critical obligation remains solely with employers to be scrupulous when deciding whether to continue a worker's employment.
By providing an official, impartial body for dismissed employees to seek justice, the FWC is often in the position to mitigate some of the harms associated with unfair dismissal. This is particularly evident in the case of conciliation, where the FWC (2023) advises that it will assist employees and employers to explore and negotiate different settlements, where ‘any outcome is possible provided both parties agree to it’. Therefore, the conciliation process has the scope for employees to seek redress for various harms identified in the locus of harm framework. For example, reputational harm, which was found to be a powerful motivator among the Group A participants to lodge an unfair dismissal claim, might be redressed with a reference letter. Psychological harm may be alleviated with a formal apology, and a range of institutional harms might be mitigated through the employer agreeing to implement changes to workplace policies and practices, and/or training for managers.
In contrast, the limited forms of remedy that can be provided if a dismissed employee pursues a determined hearing (arbitration), in the event it is awarded in their favour, will address more overt harms such as capped levels of compensation for lost wages, and/or reinstatement (to a probably hostile workplace). In the 2023–2024 period, the FWC (2024d) determined 265 hearings. Of these, 17 employees were reinstated, and 155 were awarded compensation, with the median compensation being equivalent to 5 weeks’ pay, while 18 remedies were still pending determination. Thus, these arbitration remedies have less utility to address the broad range of injuries catalogued in the locus of harm framework, with conciliation offering a more effective solution. As noted by the union/legal advisors (Group B participants), employees considering an unfair dismissal claim can face challenges, including experiencing anxiety about navigating tribunal processes, attending hearings, and, specifically in arbitration, having their case details made public. To this end, the vital role of the Group B participants, that is, union/legal advisors, that emerged during the analysis demonstrates that these professionals provide not only legal assistance but also essential counselling and guidance to manage the worker's expectations about the unfair dismissal claims process. This support is crucial in helping workers navigate the opportunities for, and likelihood of, mitigating the institutional and identity harms.
Managerial prerogative is not a mandate for management to exploit their employees. Instead, the obligation that employers create HRM practices and systems that are both sustainable (Lu et al., 2023) and caring (Saks, 2022), strengthens the mandate for HRM, industrial relations, employment relations and management science scholars to pursue research that bolsters the dignified and respectful treatment of employees. The locus of harm framework presented in this paper not only analyses the sources of harm in workers’ lived experiences of being dismissed, but it also indicates weaknesses and risks to be considered in the design of HRM systems and managerial processes. It appears the employer's shortfall in professionally managing and being accountable for dismissing a worker made the experiences described considerably worse for these employees, serving as another important motivator for them to seek justice through an unfair dismissal claim. Therefore, the source of institutional harms requires further research into how HRM systems can be adapted to support sustainable and caring HRM approaches, especially PM and performance improvement planning, job role descriptions, and work allocations.
We suggest further research into the effective embodiment of organisational justice within HRM systems and processes, as well as the use of managerial and supervisory behaviours that help to minimise the institutional harms recognised here. This paper describes both the institutional and identity locus of harm that dismissed workers experience; however, ‘what happens next’ for these employees requires further research. Future studies investigating the career recovery experiences of dismissed workers are important if we are to fully appreciate the extent of the damage dismissal inflicts.
Due to their complex interplay, institutional harms appear to trigger the occurrence and/or intensity of the identity harms. Liu et al. (2020) suggest that events such as job loss disrupt a person's work-related identity, creating a gap between the worker's actual self and their ideal self. Additionally, the emotion residue, that is, residual emotions that may linger and affect the person's ability to move forward (Conroy and O'leary-Kelly, 2014), and the scarring effect of unemployment on future career opportunities (Filomena, 2024) further fuel the gap between the person's work and non-work identities. These impacts accumulate during the temporal spread of the psychosocial harm identified in the locus of harm framework, spanning the pre-, during and post-dismissal experience for the employee. A parallel observation has been made by Shallcross and Bland (2025), who documented the ‘psychological terror’ (Leyman, 1990) associated with a five-phase mobbing pattern. This pattern is exacerbated by management through the use of false or unfounded accusations, leading to unfair dismissal and subsequent psychological injury. Thus, minimising institutional harm could well lessen the impacts across the identity harm elements, aiding faster recovery and less physical, emotional, and mental toll on the employee.
We acknowledge that this paper explored purely the worker's viewpoint. We note there are stresses and impacts experienced by managers, HRM professionals, and other parties associated with implementing a dismissal process. Therefore, it is just as necessary to pursue research into these lived experiences of HRM professionals, managers, and supervisors, particularly as they are at risk of being unfairly targeted by a disgruntled employee or vulnerable to ‘upwards bullying’ (Busby et al., 2022), and their own well-being while operating in the role of ‘organisational toxin handlers’ (Daniel, 2020). We also note there is more scope for research capturing the role of support professionals. This could be further enhanced by using dyads of dismissed workers and their union or legal advisors to provide deeper insights into the support mechanisms, advocacy, and communication dynamics that influence the outcomes and experiences of dismissed workers.
Conclusion
An unexpected and sudden dismissal yields personal trauma to the affected worker with broader implications for those around them. The recent ruling by the High Court of Australia in Elisha vs Vision Australia [2024] HCA 50, unequivocally underscores that unfair dismissal poses significant injury risks to employees. The locus of harm framework consolidates and advances our understanding about how organisational values and practices, combined with erosions to the dismissed worker's identity, are key sources of the wide-ranging harms that a dismissal can inflict on a worker's well-being, happiness, career, and financial standing. As things currently stand, workers are left to their own devices to heal from the trauma of an unfair dismissal. These findings highlight the nature of potential harms they must overcome in order to move forward with rebuilding their lives and careers. This framework identifies critical areas that key employment and industrial relations stakeholders, particularly employers, managers, and HRM departments must address to cultivate balanced, healthy and productive workforces.
Footnotes
Authorship
Both authors consent to the submission of this article and both have made substantial contributions to this article. All eligible authors are included.
Data availability
Participants did not consent to share their data beyond the research team.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval
This research has been conducted under the University of Southern Queensland's Human Research Ethics Committee's approval no. H21REA246.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The doctoral study associated with this research has been supported by the Australian Government's Research Training Scheme.
Informed consent
Each participant was over 18 years of age. Each person was provided with a participant information sheet that advised anonymised data will be disseminated via publication in articles, book chapters, conference papers and reports and presentations to industry. Each participant signed an informed consent form before engaging in the study.
