Former staff from major Australian tech firms have highlighted the strong control companies retain after termination. Common claims include being compelled to sign agreements that ban criticism, narrowly defined rights to stock, and dismissals based on performance. These measures are intended to safeguard corporate reputation and investor interests but may leave ex-employees without fair compensation or avenues for appeal.
Recent unfair dismissal cases brought to Australian courts reveal that employees from top-tier startups were often required to sign non-disparagement agreements and could lose equity if not classified as "good leavers." The companies in question include some of Australia's highest-valued startups, where equity plays a significant role in remuneration.
At one billion-dollar graphic design software company, an engineer dismissed in mid-2025 was subject to a performance improvement plan, later dismissed, and then asked to sign agreements that prohibited public criticism of the company. These contracts also included clauses covering confidentiality and intellectual property, ensuring that all work done during employment remained with the company. He is currently pursuing reinstatement or compensation through legal channels.
At a software firm listed internationally and valued near $67 billion, another engineer filed a claim after being terminated just before the end of his probation period. He said internal concerns he raised were ignored and that his early dismissal caused him to miss out on stock worth roughly $1 million. The company said the termination followed correct procedure, noting that performance issues were raised repeatedly in individual meetings.
In another case, a former executive at a $2.5 billion workplace software company said his job was cut shortly before a significant share-vesting milestone. Although classified as a “good leaver” and able to access some vested shares, he claims the timing of his dismissal deprived him of future income linked to additional stock. That case has been resolved.
These examples point to a wider pattern, where top tech companies tighten regulations over branding and financial responsibilities during staff departures. While this may help maintain high valuations and limit legal risk, it could trigger pushback from skilled professionals and raise concerns over whether such practices are ethical or sustainable in a competitive talent market.
