Slack Attack: Atlassian Faces Legal Challenge After Firing Employee for Internal Chat Message
- Naomi Shivaraman
- 13 hours ago
- 4 min read
On its website, Atlassian declares "Open company, no bullshit", as one its core values.
That bold statement now sits uncomfortably. The global tech company has been accused of illegally firing an American employee who criticised her boss in the wake of a company-wide restructure announcement.
The Australian-based software giant, co-founded by tech billionaires Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar (now moved on from Atlassian), is before a US labour tribunal defending its decision to terminate software engineer Denise Unterwurzacher, who mocked and criticised Cannon-Brookes on an internal messaging platform. Atlassian claims she was “… essentially calling him a ‘rich jerk’.”
Unterwurzacher was fired in June 2023 after staff were told about a restructure that would result in job cuts and demotions. During an ‘Ask Me Anything’ video conference, then co-CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes, allegedly reprimanded staff for complaining.
On the company’s internal Slack channel “Outrage Notification”, participants including Unterwurzacher slammed Cannon-Brookes’ comments, allegedly mocking him for joining the meeting from the headquarters of the Utah Jazz basketball team he co-owns. “What’s up Outragers, just dialling in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummelled,” Unterwurzacher wrote.
The US National Labor Relations Board’s attorney has argued that employees are entitled to protest and discuss their working conditions in ways that their bosses might not like, and that Unterwurzacher’s dismissal was unlawful.
Atlassian’s attorney argued that while employees are encouraged to speak up about workplace issues, the manner must remain professional and respectful, and that “…the law does not protect conduct that is abusive or gratuitously insulting.”
If This Happened in Australia
With much of corporate Australia espousing values of transparency, accountability and positive workplace culture, ,it is understandable why some might take such mission statements literally.
However, these values and policies do not give licence to direct insults or profanities at bosses or colleagues. Standards of behaviour exist in every workplace, regardless of what is written on the company website. Had this dispute arisen in Australia, the legislative framework would differ, but the core tension would be the same.
Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission determines unfair dismissal claims by assessing whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
Section 387 of the Act sets out the factors the Commission must consider, including whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal, whether the employee was notified of that reason, and whether the employee had received any prior warning about unsatisfactory conduct or performance.
Being punished for speaking up or raising questions about workplace conditions may amount to adverse action.
Under Part 3-1 of the Act, an employer is prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee who exercises, or proposes to exercise, a workplace right.
This includes making a complaint or inquiry about employment, questioning company policies, or raising concerns about pay and working conditions. Unterwurzacher's comments could credibly be argued as the exercise of a workplace right, given they arose directly from staff concerns about demotions and job losses.
Had the matter been heard in Australia, the burden would fall on the employer to prove the dismissal was not motivated by her protected conduct.
Where does Candour End and Misconduct Begin?
How do companies encourage frank discussion and a culture of speaking up, while maintaining standards that stop short of offensive conduct? It is a fine line, and one that well-drafted workplace policies can help define.
Clear codes of conduct give employees a reasonable understanding of where the boundaries lie. Setting boundaries is not the same as silencing staff or dissent.
Safety concerns and legitimate workplace grievances should always be raised by employees without fear of retribution.
Disputes are common and inevitable in any workplace, but it is always advisable that people do not resort to personal insults or verbal abuse, no matter how heated and potentially stressful the situation becomes. As the Atlassian case illustrates, crossing that line can prove costly for employers and employees alike.
The case is ongoing.
The content in this Article is intended only to provide a summary and general overview on matters of interest. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor does it constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Naomi Shivaraman has been an award winning journalist and producer for 25 years. She joined BlackBay as the team’s Legal Affairs Strategist, a role created to utilise her combined legal and media strategy skills, helping clients and stakeholders navigate the court of public opinion.
Not only does she assist the team in a paralegal capacity on complex litigation matters, but she also provides reputational, media and communications counsel. For the past few years, Naomi has combined her law studies with a full-time career. Naomi will finish her Bachelor of Laws degree at Macquarie University next year.
