Real grounds to dismiss, but no warning and no chance to respond - and it cost the business
Having a fair reason to sack someone is not enough. You also have to do it properly. That is the lesson from a Fair Work Commission decision handed down in Perth on September 2, 2026.
Nitschke Industries, a small freight business trading as Lake Grace Transport in Western Australia's Wheatbelt, dismissed its freight depot manager on December 31, 2025. It was a summary dismissal - she was let go on the spot, without notice. The worker, hired in December 2024, brought an unfair dismissal claim.
The company put forward several reasons: late-notice absences, personal use of a company fuel card, alleged drug use, and rude behaviour toward staff and customers. Commissioner Lim worked through them one by one.
Most fell away. The worker's December absences were linked to a domestic violence situation the Commissioner found credible. On the drug claims, she accepted the worker never came to work under the influence, noting the worker was being drug-tested by the Family Court at the time. A statement from the company's bookkeeper about a customer comment was given no weight because the bookkeeper did not attend to give evidence.
Two reasons held up. The worker had left an abusive voicemail - about a minute long - for a staffer at another company, and the Commissioner described the language as unacceptable even by blue-collar standards. She had also used the company fuel card six times across December for personal driving without permission. Either one, the Commissioner found, was a valid reason to dismiss.
So the employer had the substance. It still lost - on process.
The Small Business Fair Dismissal Code gives smaller employers a simpler path to let staff go. For an on-the-spot dismissal, it is only fair if the employer genuinely believes, on reasonable grounds, that the conduct was serious enough to justify it. The Commissioner accepted the owner genuinely believed that. But she found the belief was not reasonable, because there was no evidence he had ever raised any of the issues with the worker before firing her.
The Code's other path, for ordinary dismissals, calls for a valid reason, a warning, and a chance to improve. None of that happened. The Commissioner noted the owner had known about the voicemail since around August 2025 and left it for four months. Even the text setting up the December 31 meeting gave the worker no hint her job was at risk.
The way the business ran its case did not help. It missed an earlier conference and sent a Commission call to voicemail. Much of its written material was drafted by an administrative employee who never gave evidence, and it emerged the owner had not read parts of what he relied on. The Commissioner did not find him a credible or honest witness. At the hearing, the business argued the worker had not really been dismissed at all - that by not attending the meeting she had accepted the job was over - which did not sit with its own email to the Commission stating she had been fairly terminated.
The dismissal was unjust, and therefore unfair. On remedy, the Commissioner reasoned that a proper process would have taken about three weeks at that time of year, then trimmed a week because the worker's own conduct contributed to the outcome. That left $3,192 gross, plus a 12% superannuation contribution, due within 14 days.
The lesson for HR is a tidy one. A valid reason is only half the equation. You can have genuine misconduct on file and still lose if you never raise it, never warn, and never let the employee respond. Deal with issues as they come up, put them to the person, warn before you act, and keep a record. The Code hands small businesses a lighter process - but as the Commissioner spelled out, thin HR resourcing does not excuse skipping the basics.
