Property management associate who had ‘done a few things wrong’ sacked

Bennett commenced employment as a property management associate at C21PA in Maryborough, Queensland, on 30 August 2023. This was an entry-level role in which he was tasked with supporting the agency’s property managers.

9 months in

Walkaden found that Bennett would show up to work late “regularly”. Bennett estimated that in a four-week period, his lateness would amount to “maybe” three or four days.

“I am satisfied that being late to work between 15 per cent – 20 per cent of the time is regular,” the commissioner said.

In addition, the court found that within a few months of commencement with the agency, his former employer said that he used his phone regularly during work hours, disregarded training directions from colleagues and instructions from his head of department, and lacked attention to detail in performing his duties.

First warning

During the hearing, Bennett claimed that no “official performance management” was carried out, alleging that he did not receive any warnings or disciplinary action for his “unsatisfactory performance”.

The court found that nine months into the role, the agency issued Bennett a warning letter on 14 June 2024 for his performance in the lead-up, with a one-month review period effective immediately, until 15 July 2024.

In discussing the warning at the hearing, Bennett acknowledged that he had “done a few things wrong at the time”.

“My finding that Mr Bennett‘s evidence was unreliable has caused me to adopt a cautious approach to Mr Bennett’s explanation and account of the matters relevant to this application,” Walkaden said.

‘Stripped back’ duties

In December of the same year, Bennett’s duties were narrowed, and he began performing reception duties. On 27 March 2025, his duties were further “stripped back” to constitute a receptionist role, replacing his former property management associate role. He was notified of this change by email by the then newly appointed general manager of the agency, Melissa Hueso.

Bennett responded to Hueso’s email, saying: “I look forward to this new change and will endeavour to achieve success in each of these key responsibilities, while supporting the property management team…you rock!”

Unsatisfactory performance

One of Bennett’s duties was to log keys to client properties. The commissioner found that on numerous occasions, agents “took over from this task” as Bennett provided them with the wrong keys, “which meant they would have to come back to the office to get the correct keys before then going back to the property”.

Additionally, his role involved connecting incoming calls from prospective landlord clients to the appropriate agent. During one incident, Bennett failed to transfer a call to an agent. He reasoned that the landlord was “very disgruntled”, “very gung ho” and wanted to speak to someone “straight away”. Upon these findings, Walkaden was satisfied that Bennett should have been able to transfer the call to an appropriate agent.

The commissioner said: “Dealing with difficult clients can be an unfortunate, but necessary, aspect of a customer-facing role. There is a difference between a difficult client and an abusive client.”

Fateful meetings

In a one-on-one meeting that took place on 14 May 2025, the court heard that Bennett told Hueso something to the effect that his workload was too much, to which she responded that it was not excessive and should be manageable.

Two days later, in another meeting between the two, along with Bennett’s partner and an additional staff member, Bennett was made aware of his dismissal and was issued an immediately effective termination letter. During this meeting on 16 May 2025, Bennett announced that his colleagues had been bullying and harassing him and “he did not have the confidence to speak up about what was wrong”, court documents revealed.

Victim of bullying and harassment

In a written statement about one alleged bullying event, Bennett said that he “arched up” to a colleague, saying “fuck Kelly, what’s with your attitude?”, after the colleague (Kelly) suggested that he help another colleague.

Based on this event, Walkaden did not accept Bennett’s characterisation that he “lack[ed] the confidence to speak up”, saying that this “does not explain his ongoing unsatisfactory performance with respect to the logging of keys”.

Walkaden ruled that Bennett was dismissed on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

Upholding the decision to dismiss Bennett, the commissioner ruled that it was not “harsh, unreasonable, or unjust”, rejecting his application.

The case: Mr Ryan Bennett v C21PA Pty Ltd (U2025/9612).

This article was first published in REB's sister publication HR Leader.