Australia’s top tech firms face scrutiny over staff exit policies, with recent legal cases exposing rules that prevent former employees from criticising their previous employers and impose limitations on access to company share incentives. These policies are aimed at protecting reputation and equity structures, though they may contribute to negative outcomes both for individuals and corporate image.
Several ex-employees from leading Australian start-ups have alleged unfair dismissal and punitive post-employment terms. Legal documents show that departing employees often sign confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements and are required to return all company property and digital access. In some instances, failure to comply can jeopardise equity retention, particularly when share vesting depends on being classified as a “good leaver.”
One former employee from a recognised design tech firm disclosed a termination letter listing extensive post-exit obligations. These included bans on gossiping or making negative comments about the company, all tied to prior contracts and confidentiality agreements that remain in effect after employment ends.
At a global software company with a strong Australian footprint, claims have emerged that performance reviews and probationary periods were used to justify dismissals. Some staff alleged these actions occurred soon after they raised internal concerns. The performance framework, which supposedly tracks individual contribution, has been described by former employees as punitive rather than constructive.
Another former executive from a workplace safety software company sought compensation after his position was eliminated, despite being labelled a “good leaver.” His case focused on how share options were handled and the financial consequences of early termination, particularly when promises under the equity scheme had been previously made.
These disputes highlight the wider impact of exit and retention policies in fast-growing tech environments. While such measures are designed to protect companies, they may also drive away talent, discourage openness and raise reputational risks. The outcomes of these cases could influence how Australian start-ups adjust their HR policies in response to a more experienced workforce and rising employee advocacy.
