What happens when standard practices clash with employer expectations?
The Fair Work Commission recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case concerning quality control procedures at a minerals testing facility. A quality control officer challenged his summary dismissal after his employer alleged he had falsified and manipulated client data.
The worker, who had more than twenty years of experience in metallurgy and laboratory operations, maintained that his handling of anomalous data reflected standard industry practice. His employer, Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd, disagreed and ended his employment without notice.
The case examined professional standards in technical roles and when summary dismissal might be considered too harsh, even if there were valid grounds for ending employment.
The employer operated a laboratory in Whyalla, South Australia, that conducted technical assessments of rock and soil samples for mining and steel processing clients, including BHP's Carrapateena mine. The facility operated under National Association of Testing Authorities certification.
Quality control officers examined raw data entered by laboratory technicians for errors or anomalies. When issues arose, they could review raw data, assess control samples, or consult with technicians before issuing reports to clients.
In one shift, quality control officers typically processed about 130 reports on client samples. The laboratory needed to maintain strict industry standards to keep its certification.
In January 2024, a client questioned the worker's test results. When explaining his actions, the worker told the client: "I assumed that the moisture would've been similar to other samples in the set and since at a quick look a round figure of 100g for a sample this size was a reasonable mass loss, I added 100g and put that as the feed weight."
The laboratory manager counselled the worker about this incident. During the hearing, the laboratory manager testified that "making up numbers is not an acceptable process" and "as an analyst you don't make assumptions."
In August 2024, another incident occurred where the worker failed to identify that a control sample was involved and reported incorrect moisture readings without properly investigating the raw data.
At the Commission hearing, the worker explained his approach: "I changed the results from nonsensical ones to far more sensible ones based on a bit of reasonable reasoning and this was the standard practice that I'd done and how I'd been instructed and trained."
The Commission found this explanation inadequate, stating: "[The worker's] conduct was a serious lapse of professional judgement, occasioned by a failure to take due care and to resolve anomalies by reference to raw data from laboratory testing."
The decision emphasised: "I do not find that [the worker's] conduct represented reasonable professional assumption and estimation. He reported sample properties based on an estimate he made and thought sensible, not on outcomes from laboratory testing of the samples."
The Commission determined that while dismissal was justified, summary termination was too harsh: "The failure to dismiss with notice renders the dismissal harsh, but for that reason only."
The Commission ordered compensation equivalent to one month's pay, stating: "The compensation order will be for an amount equivalent to one month in lieu of notice. I consider this to be the appropriate sum."
The worker received $5,824 plus superannuation, payable within fourteen days of the decision.
