He was on a PIP after causing an oil spill when he breached safety protocol again
A mine worker who twice failed to follow safety protocols has lost his unfair dismissal claim after the Fair Work Commission ruled his employer acted reasonably.
The decision, handed down on 2 January 2026, centred on Mr Jeffray Fox, a maintainer fitter dismissed by Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd following two safety incidents within three months of each other. The Commission found the mining company had valid grounds and followed proper process in ending his employment.
Fox joined the Roy Hill site through labour hire in April 2023 before being hired directly on 12 December 2023. He worked in the Non-Process Infrastructure division, reporting to Supervisor Joseph Power.
Trouble began on 11 January 2025. Fox was assigned to work on an oil rack and, by his own admission, chose not to complete a Job Hazard Analysis or implement any isolation measures before starting. When he removed a ball valve on the waste oil system, another worker elsewhere activated the system, pressurising it and sending waste oil flowing from the pipework. The spill was substantial. Photographs were taken, and the Commission accepted it created a genuine hazard.
Rather than dismiss him outright, Roy Hill issued a first and final written warning and placed Fox on a Performance Improvement Plan. The company sent him for a week of refresher training on risk assessments and isolations. Over the following months, he attended review meetings and was noted as providing daily evidence of completed safety documentation to his supervisor. During one site check, his paperwork was found completed to a very good standard.
Then came 13 April 2025. Fox was replacing a pump for a sprinkler system. He had performed the electrical isolation correctly but had not isolated two mechanical valves controlling water flow through the pump. He also had not signed onto the JHA for the job. Power arrived to check on him, saw what had happened, and told him to stop work immediately.
Fox pushed back hard. He argued there was no stored energy in the pump, that a plumber on the job disagreed with Power's views on the importance of the mechanical isolations, and that Power had a vendetta against him. He also raised grievances about his earlier treatment and the impact on his bonus.
The Commission could not definitively determine whether the mechanical valve isolation was required under Roy Hill's procedures, partly because the company failed to produce the relevant documentation. But that did not save Fox. His failure to complete any JHA for the second job, coming just three months after a serious safety breach, a final warning and a tailored improvement plan, was enough.
Commissioner Lim found Roy Hill had notified Fox of the reason for dismissal, given him the opportunity to respond, and offered a support person. As a large employer with a team of HR specialists, the company had the resources to handle such matters properly, and it did.
The dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission concluded. Fox's application was dismissed.
For HR professionals, the case underscores the value of documentation, structured performance management and giving employees a genuine chance to improve before reaching for the termination letter.
