A Melbourne-based software developer has lost an unfair dismissal case after the Fair Work Commission found there were “significant challenges” working with him and that he was “corrosive to a positive environment” in the workplace.

Yevgeniy Afanasyev had been working as a web/software developer at A Future Corporation, developing software for the graphic design, sign making, digital print and CNC machining industries since April 2018.

In November last year, he was given a letter of termination informing him of four weeks’ notice, saying it was due to a collection of various alleged performance and conduct issues over several years, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) heard.

Afanasyev challenged his dismissal at the FWC and claimed it was not compliant with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.

After hearing from both sides, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Andrew Bell last week found that the dismissal was fair and complied with the Act, and that working with Afanasyev was “too difficult for too long”.

‘I don’t want to be part of the team environment’

In making the decision, Bell relied on several exchanges between Afanasyev and his colleagues and employer.

These included in early March 2023 when a new employee started at the company.

A message was sent to the team welcoming this new employee, with a number of people replying with welcome messages.

But Afanasyev messaged the group chat saying: “Can we please stop being polite and start being productive.”

After the company’s office manager said the message “comes across as quite intense and not very friendly”, Afanasyev eventually deleted the message, but then responded in a smaller chat group by saying: “Can we have 2 different group chats – one for those who are here to make friends and the one for those who are here to work?”

Afanasyev later said that he didn’t “want to be part of the team environment”.

The company issued the software developer with a warning about this conduct, saying it was “unnecessarily offensive to other staff members”.

In response, the FWC heard that Afanasyev rejected the official warning, saying the accusations were “subjective” and that if he received further warnings they would be “seen as regular harassment and cultural racism”.

The FWC found this response “demonstrated a significant lack of insight”, and that the claim of cultural racism was “quite remarkable”.

In March last year Afanasyev requested a new charger for his laptop by sending 14 messages to his boss explaining his various investigations and tests performed and offering his opinion on “no name” chargers.

This request was approved but the boss said that it didn’t require so many messages and that the time Afanasyev spent writing them was “crazy”.

The last straw

In June that year at a performance review, Afanasyev was told that improvements were needed with productivity, workplace attitude, and that there were “several instances” where his behaviour was “combative and argumentative”.

The following day Afanasyev wrote to his boss saying that he didn’t accept the concerns and that he had been trying to get a pay rise.

“All this farce related to the review of my productivity was not required to me,” Afanasyev wrote in a message.

“It was painful to learn that all my efforts are not being appreciated by the company. It still hurts. But I'm recovering.”

The final incident, which Bell said was the straw that broke the camel’s back, occurred on 7 October 2024 after Afanasyev was asked to provide a personal serial number to a colleague.

The FWC heard that he responded that they didn’t actually need it, then stormed out of the office.

Afanasyev downplayed this incident but FWC accepted it was a “heated outburst”.

Basic requests became negotiations

A number of colleagues told the commission there were “significant challenges” dealing with Afanasyev as a colleague, and Bell ruled that he was “readily satisfied” that Afanasyev’s “impact on the small team…was corrosive to a positive environment where other employees wanted to work”.

“Simple tasks became difficult,” Bell said in the decision.“Basic requests became negotiations.”

These were valid reasons to dismiss the employee, Bell decided.

“If other employees in the team routinely find dealing with a colleague is simply draining, exhausting or is unnecessarily emotionally charged, that is not an environment they will want to work in,” Bell said.

“The employer has a direct interest in balancing the needs of all its employees and where, as here, one particular team member was corrosive to the overall cohesion of the group, that is a valid reason for dismissal.”