Employee challenges termination following persistent refusal of hygiene standards
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dismissed an unfair dismissal application filed by a team leader who was terminated for repeatedly refusing to follow a company cleaning procedure.
The case involved a paint manufacturer's employee who disagreed with new hygiene standards that required using bleach in the cleaning process.
The worker argued his dismissal was unfair, claiming the cleaning procedure was unnecessary and could negatively impact product quality.
He maintained that his refusal was based on technical expertise as a chemist and that the procedure was not being followed by other employees.
The worker started employment with the paint manufacturer in January 2016 as an operator and was promoted to team leader in 2024.
The company produces water-based acrylic wall coating and the worker "was passionate about his job" and "took a personal interest in ensuring high quality production in an efficient way." His background as a chemist informed his approach to production processes.
In late 2021, the company introduced a new cleaning procedure to improve hygiene standards, requiring the use of sodium hypochlorite (bleach).
Previously, the company had used hot water and high pressure washing to clean production equipment. The worker disagreed with this change based on his technical knowledge.
On 2 July 2024, when instructed to undertake the cleaning procedure, the worker refused. Management investigated his concerns through their quality team, which "advised that sodium hypochlorite did not present a risk to the product." Despite this, the worker continued refusing the procedure.
The worker made "a further refusal to follow the [cleaning procedure]" on 3 February 2025, prompting formal disciplinary action.
Management held meetings on 6, 11, and 14 February 2025, where the worker "reiterated his position that the cleaning process was unnecessary and raised a concern that sodium hypochlorite can affect the colour of the paint produced."
On 11 February 2025, management "issued a first and final written warning" for the refusal. The worker "stated words to the effect that he would continue to refuse to comply with the instruction."
Management stood him down on pay pending further consideration. On 14 February 2025, the worker "reaffirmed his position that he would not perform the [cleaning] procedure in the future."
Management also "advised that his employment was at risk if he continued to refuse this instruction" and confirmed he understood.
The worker "confirmed he did and continued to, in effect, refuse the instruction." He was given additional time to provide written concerns and submitted eight pages of notes about potential impacts of sodium hypochlorite.
The FWC found there was a valid reason for dismissal, determining that management's direction was "a lawful and reasonable request."
The quality manager, who has "a degree in Forensic and Analytical Chemistry," provided evidence that bleach "does not cause a negative impact to paint products in the amounts and manner it is used" and had "not seen any quality issue as a result of using the [cleaning] process in relation to the hundreds of batches she had overseen."
The FWC noted that "while [the worker] may disagree that the [cleaning procedure] is the most effective procedure, this is ultimately a choice for [the company] to make."
The Commission found the worker "repeatedly refused [the company's] lawful and reasonable direction," constituting valid grounds for dismissal.
The FWC rejected the worker's argument that other employees weren't following the procedure, noting that "even if [the worker] could establish that other employees were not regularly performing the [cleaning procedure], that does not detract from the fact that it was a reasonable and lawful direction." Given his team leader role, "it was particularly important that he followed reasonable and lawful directions."
The FWC concluded the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commission acknowledged the worker "is clearly a clever man who cared deeply about his job and product quality" and considered his service since 2016.
However, it found the company "is entitled to run its business how it sees fit, and issue lawful and reasonable directions."
The FWC found the company "engaged in an extensive and fair disciplinary process which afforded [the worker] procedural fairness and gave him numerous opportunities to change his work practice."
The worker was allowed union representation at all meetings and given additional time to submit written documentation about his concerns.
The application was dismissed, with the FWC determining: "I have concluded that [the worker] was not unfairly dismissed."
The case demonstrates the importance of following lawful workplace directions, regardless of personal disagreement with company policies.
