A Woolworths manager has lost his bid to reclaim his job after the Fair Work Commission found he had sexually harassed a colleague 34 years his junior. The manager had subjected her to months of unwelcome conduct, repeatedly calling her “beautiful,” sending heart and kiss emojis and pressuring her to go out with him. He denied that he was harassing her, claiming that he considered the victim “like a granddaughter.”
In this article, we’ll look at the events of this unfair dismissal NSW case: Alexander Pushik v Woolworths Group Limited [2025].
Fair Work upholds Woolworths manager’s dismissal for sexual harassment
Russian national Alexander Pushik had started working for Woolworths in 2008. At the time of his dismissal, he was the Fruit & Veg Manager at Woolworths’ store in the Western Sydney suburb of Wentworthville. This made Mr. Pushik the third most senior employee at the store. He had completed training in Woolworths’ code of conduct in early 2024. This covered topics including respectful workplace, bullying and sexual harassment.
Ms. Ghimire worked with Mr. Pushik at the store. She was a 29 year old part time employee and international student from Nepal. The conduct that led to the dismissal occurred between December 2024 and April 2025. Ms. Ghimire testified that Mr. Pushik’s behaviour left her feeling “terrorised” and “humiliated.” The interactions occurred both on the shop floor and through persistent private messaging on social media outside of work hours.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Sexual harassment started with unwanted kiss
The escalation of the sexual harassment was documented through several key incidents. During a Woolworths Christmas party in late November 2024, Ms. Ghimire noticed Mr. Pushik “staring at her from a distance” at different times. He eventually “rushed up to her,” grabbed her, and “kissed her on the cheek” while stating, “You look so beautiful today.” Ms. Ghimire reported that she “awkwardly tried to push” the manager off her, saying that the experience was “very uncomfortable.”
Following the party, the conduct moved to digital platforms. On 1 December 2024, Mr. Pushik sent an emoji with heart eyes. He subsequently posted a public GIF on her Facebook profile of a heart with the words “be my valentine.” On 26 December 2024, he commented on three of her older photos with different pictures of a rose.
By March 2025, Mr. Pushik’s sexual harassment intensified. He sent Ms. Ghimire a red lipstick kiss emoji and messages calling her “beautiful” and saying “[I] can take you out one day.” Commenting on one of Ms. Ghimire’s posts, he wrote “Always love you.” In April 2025, he sent her private messages saying “I love you” and “Do you love me.”
During store shifts, Mr. Pushik frequently approached Ms. Ghimire when she was alone to tell her she was “so pretty” and “beautiful.” He also told her that she was “always looking so pretty” in photos she posted on Facebook. In another instance, when she asked for help with her duties, he replied, “I would do anything for you,” in front of other staff. This led to colleagues asking her why he appeared to be “obsessed” with her. She said that this was deeply distressing and “humiliated” her.
In April 2025, while Ms. Ghimire was closing the deli, Mr. Pushik pressured her to go for a drink. When she refused, he showed her “karaoke videos” and told her about “private karaoke rooms” available in Russia. He further alarmed her by stating he had seen videos of her doing karaoke on her Facebook page. Ms. Ghimire recalled feeling “intimidated” and had to lie about her finishing time “for her own safety.” During Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, she said that she was made “uncomfortable” as Mr. Pushik’s comments revealed that he was looking at her Facebook page.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Manager claimed victim was ‘like a granddaughter’ to him
Ms. Ghimire complained about the sexual harassment to the store manager on 14 April 2025. She reported feeling “uncomfortable” with Mr. Pushik’s behaviour, specifically presenting the string of messages she had received. This report was made after a manager noticed her visibly upset on the shop floor earlier that month. Ms. Ghimire later testified that she had been hesitant to come forward due to her status as an international student. She feared the legal complexities and potential impact on her visa or academic performance.
Following the complaint, Woolworths appointed an independent investigator from a nearby store to maintain neutrality. On 22 April 2025, Mr. Pushik was called into a meeting with the investigator and the Wentworthville assistant store manager. Mr. Pushik was shown screenshots of the messages and confirmed he was the sender. He defended his actions by claiming that the messages were “normal” and similar to those he sends to friends.
Mr. Pushik argued that there was no sexual content because he viewed Ms. Ghimire “like a granddaughter.” He claimed that he was “just being friendly” and believed a friendship existed between them.
Manager didn’t engage in show cause process, then summarily dismissed
On 1 May 2025, Woolworths issued a formal “show cause” letter to Mr. Pushik, placing him on suspension. He was given five days to explain in writing why his employment should not be terminated for serious misconduct and breaches of Woolworths’ code of conduct. Mr. Pushik did not respond to this request and ignored calls from the Wentworthville store manager.
Given this, on 8 May 2025 Woolworths decided that Mr. Pushik would face immediate termination of employment. This was based on the social media messages he had sent Ms. Ghimire, which were seen as a violation of sexual harassment policies. Mr. Pushik subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
Argued conduct wasn’t sexual harassment as victim never told him to stop
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Pushik denied that any of his conduct violated Woolworths’ sexual harassment policy. He said that Ms. Ghimire had never given him any feedback about the comments and that her complaint came “out of the blue.” Mr. Pushik admitted that he had posted comments on Ms. Ghimire’s Facebook that included “beautiful girl” and “I love you.” He said he posted these because she was “looking very nice” in photos she posted.
However, Mr. Pushik argued that his comments didn’t have any “sexual content.” He suggested that his comments were a normal way of interacting. He said that when he had done a favour for another colleague, they had said to him as thanks “I love you, Alex.” Mr. Pushik also defended commenting “be my valentine” and posting a rose on Ms. Ghimire’s Facebook posts. He argued that these were simply a “very nice gesture.”
Mr. Pushik suggested that if his use of the word “love” was considered sexual harassment, he could be accused of harassing not only “friends and family members,” but also “their dogs, cats, ferrets and other pets.” He maintained that he viewed Ms. Ghimire in a “grandparental way” or “like a granddaughter” because of their 34 year age gap. He further argued that because Ms. Ghimire never explicitly told him to stop, he believed his messages were “just friendly.”
Woolworths: Lack of remorse, risk of reoffending justified termination of employment
In response to Mr. Pushik’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Woolworths argued that his conduct had clearly breached its sexual harassment policy. The company submitted that his actions created a hostile work environment for a vulnerable subordinate. Woolworths highlighted that Mr. Pushik’s messages, often sent at 2am or 4am, were “unwanted and uninvited conduct” with the intent of pursuing a romantic relationship.
The retailer noted that the decision to terminate his employment was influenced by the fact that he had an “apparent lack of remorse.” Woolworths said that he had denied his behaviour had been inappropriate, and instead justified it. He had suggested that his behaviour was the “typical” way he interacted with other colleagues. To Woolworths, this raised the risk that he would do the same to another colleague as he had done to Ms. Ghimire.
The company highlighted the fact that Mr. Pushik had not responded to the show cause letter, indicating that he did not understand the seriousness of the matter. Woolworths also noted that when Mr. Pushik was asked why he made certain messages private, he said it was so others would not “misinterpret” them. The company took this as admission that he knew what he was doing was not appropriate.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Manager admitted to romantic interest in victim
Mr. Pushik’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in November 2025. It noted that he had sent Ms. Ghimire GIFs of love hearts, images of red roses, and multiple messages stating “Love you” and “Do you love me.” Emojis sent by the manager included “plump, red lips” and “two people kissing with a love heart between them.”
The Commission rejected Mr. Pushik’s “grandfatherly” defence, noting that he admitted under cross-examination that he “wouldn’t mind taking Ms. Ghimire out, for example, to a show.” Regarding his “be my valentine” comment, the Commission noted that Mr. Pushik’s submitted evidence indicated that he would not post such a message for a male colleague. He suggested that he would only post it for a female colleague that he was romantically interested in. Under cross-examination, Mr. Pushik also admitted that he “would be romantically interested” in someone if he told them that they were “beautiful.”
Fair Work unfair dismissal: Conduct met three key characteristics of sexual harassment
The Fair Work Commission noted that Woolworths’ code of conduct used the same sexual harassment definition as in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). This includes three criteria for conduct to be considered sexual harassment. Namely, that it is conduct of a sexual nature; that it is unwelcome; and that a reasonable person would anticipate the conduct would cause offense, humiliation or intimidation. The Commission had to work out if Mr. Pushik’s behaviour satisfied these three elements. If so, Woolworths would have a valid reason to dismiss him.
On the question of whether the conduct was of a sexual nature, the Commission found that it was not “overtly or explicitly sexual.” However, it constituted a “sexual advance” because it was an expression of Mr. Pushik’s desire to enter into an intimate personal relationship with Ms. Ghimire. Citing legal precedent, the Commission noted that “implicit within it was a desire for sex.”
Regarding the second element, the Commission found that Ms. Ghimire’s non-responsiveness and her attempts to avoid Mr. Pushik proved the conduct was unwelcome. It noted that her decision not to block him was influenced by the fact that he was the third most senior person employed at the store.
The Commission next considered if Mr. Pushik’s behaviour exhibited the third element of sexual harassment. It found that a reasonable person would anticipate that a young woman on a student visa would feel offended, humiliated or intimidated by persistent romantic pursuit from a senior manager 34 years her senior.
Lack of procedural fairness outweighed by sexual harassment
The Fair Work Commission did note some procedural deficiencies with Mr. Pushik’s termination of employment. It highlighted the fact that he was not given the full details of Ms. Ghimire’s written complaint at the time. However, the Commission said that he understood that the allegations related to the sexual connotations of his messages. It also noted that Woolworths did not find out about the full extent of the harassment until after the initial dismissal process began.
However, these factors were outweighed by the gravity of Mr. Pushik’s sexual harassment. The Commission found that Woolworths’decision to terminate his employment was sound and defensible. This particularly so given that Mr. Pushik had insisted that his behaviour was acceptable, which the company viewed as a risk for future misconduct. The Commission ultimately concluded that his behaviour “fell well below community standards and expectations.” Mr. Pushik’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.
Have you faced sexual harassment?
For over 20 years, Sexual Harassment Australia has been at the forefront of sexual harassment assistance in Australia. We’re nationally recognised for our expertise in sexual harassment claims and have achieved significant settlements through mediation, tribunals and commissions.
Our specialist representatives provide confidential advice, personal support and timely intervention, guiding you through an often overwhelming process. If you’ve experienced unwanted, intimidating or offensive behaviour at work, we’re here to listen and explain your legal options. Call us today on 1800 333 666 for a complimentary and confidential consultation.
