Rubber Duck ‘Summoning Ritual’ Leads to Unfair Dismissal Ruling
A hotel worker who found herself on the wrong side of management after a rather unusual “practical joke” has successfully challenged her dismissal, with a commission finding she was unfairly sacked. The incident, which involved arranging rubber ducks around a pentagram symbol, ultimately led to the termination of both the employee and her wife, who worked for the same company.
Emma Donato, a duty manager at Cleveland Sands Hotel in Brisbane, was employed by Australian Venue Company from June 2025. Early in her tenure, she began placing small rubber ducks in staff areas as a light-hearted attempt to boost morale during what she described as an “increasingly stressful” period for the team. This quirky initiative was intended as a bit of fun, a way to inject some levity into the workplace.
However, the situation took a turn on the evening of July 3rd. The Fair Work Commission heard that Mrs. Donato arranged a small display on her manager’s desk. This display featured a number of rubber ducks positioned around a hand-drawn pentagram. For those unfamiliar, a pentagram is a five-pointed star, often associated with occult practices and sometimes with Satanism. Mrs. Donato explained the arrangement as a playful “summoning ritual” intended to “summon more ducks,” and she even mentioned plans to introduce a larger duck the following day.
The manager, upon discovering the display, lodged a formal complaint. Her written complaint, accompanied by a photograph, expressed significant distress. She stated, “I have just arrived to work to find the attached picture on my desk. No matter if it seems funny with the duckies, it is a symbol evoking the devil. I have past experiences that terrify me of these ritualistic actions, but I’m sure it would upset anyone.”
Despite the manager’s reaction, Mrs. Donato maintained that she and the manager worked the rest of that shift without any apparent issue. She later heard rumours of an HR complaint on July 6th. Mrs. Donato stated that she avoided discussing the matter with her manager, as she perceived no signs of discomfort from her.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Donato’s wife, Serena, who was employed by Australian Venue Company at a different venue, Mansfield Tavern Brisbane, also became aware of the situation. Serena informed the commission that she had heard the incident had been escalated to HR, but she was unaware of the full extent or that anyone felt personally targeted.
Seeking clarification, Serena participated in an Instagram group chat with current and former Cleveland Sands staff. She posted, “Alright I have to ask: who knows what about the aftermath of the ducks LMFAAAOOO. Maybe needless to say, Emma’s spooked and it’d be real cool if it didn’t get gossiped about at worrrkkk I beg I beg.”
These messages were subsequently shared with Mrs. Donato’s manager. The commission was told that the manager then informed the company’s people and culture team, asserting that the group chat messages constituted mocking her about the pentagram incident.
In the days that followed, Mrs. Donato received a series of formal letters from management detailing the allegations against her. On July 9th, she sent a text message apologising to her manager and subsequently attended a disciplinary meeting. In her apology, she expressed regret if the incident had caused any harm. Mrs. Donato explained to the commission that she felt it was inappropriate to apologise before being formally contacted by HR, as she had only been privy to rumours. Following this meeting, Mrs. Donato was issued a letter of dismissal.
The consequences extended to Serena as well. She was also dismissed after meeting with management regarding her group chat messages.
The situation took a peculiar turn just over a month later, on August 11th. The Donatos discovered that Emma’s manager had publicly shared an image of a new tattoo. This tattoo, the commission heard, depicted “the very pentagram shape that she and [Australian Venue Company] claim to have caused her distress.”
The couple pursued an appeal against their dismissals at the commission in Brisbane. On February 5th, Commissioner Chris Simpson delivered his findings, ruling in favour of the Donatos. Commissioner Simpson stated, “[Emma] Donato consistently stated that the reason she had been placing ducks around the workplace was to boost morale of the team as a whole, and when asked she would tell people what she was doing. I accept her submission that while her prank may have been unwise it was not intended to be malicious.” He further clarified that her actions did not constitute bullying under the Fair Work Act.
Commissioner Simpson also found that Serena Donato had been unaware of the manager’s distress and that her group chat messages did not amount to bullying or mockery.
Addressing the manager’s pentagram tattoo, the commissioner made a pointed observation. “I simply make the observation that this seems somewhat incongruent with the level of impact the [manager] appears to have communicated to the [company], that the incident had on her,” he remarked.
Australian Venue Company was subsequently ordered to provide compensation to both women. Emma Donato received six weeks’ pay, totalling $8,405.76, while Serena Donato was awarded $7,050.00 for the same period.
In a statement to the Daily Mail, Australian Venue Company acknowledged the commission’s decision and stated that they respect its position. “We will review the findings carefully and continue to look for ways to improve our processes to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all employees,” the company said. They reiterated their zero-tolerance approach to bullying and harassment and their commitment to a safe and respectful workplace, but declined further comment due to privacy considerations.
Employment lawyer Roxanne Hart weighed in on the case via TikTok, highlighting a key takeaway: “Not every breach of policy is a valid reason for termination.” She added, “The federal commission said that [the dismissal] wasn’t essentially a proportional response to terminate the employee for the practical joke.” The case serves as a reminder that workplace disciplinary actions must be proportionate and well-justified, even when dealing with unconventional behaviour.
