The decision to fire was made before the meeting even started, the FWC found
A Perth employer dismissed a supervisor for a safety breach it never communicated to staff. The Fair Work Commission ruled the termination unfair.
Commissioner Lim handed down the decision in Kee Onn Yong v UGC Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 976 on 23 March 2026, ordering $39,498.90 in compensation plus a 12% superannuation contribution.
Mr Yong worked as a supervisor at UGC Holdings, a civil contracting and commercial landscaping company in Perth, from July 2024 until his summary dismissal on 2 October 2025.
At the centre of the dispute was a side door at UGC's warehouse that staff used to access vehicles and load equipment. In early September 2024, an A4 piece of paper reading "no entry or exit" was placed on the door and the handle was shackled with a chain, despite an emergency exit sign above it. No explanation was given to staff. A former employee confirmed she did not know it was an emergency exit until after Mr Yong's dismissal.
When crew members asked if they could keep using the door, Mr Yong agreed on the basis he could not see any safety issues. Neither he nor another supervisor knew why the door had been blocked off. On 16 September 2025, he learned the directive came from managing director Nathan Ulrich and sought an explanation. Mr Ulrich would not explain why the door had been blocked off, asked who was still using it so he could issue them with a warning, and said the crew did not need to know the rationale. Mr Yong later clarified he was not trying to go against Mr Ulrich but had been offering an opinion on the matter. Mr Ulrich said he was open to such conversations but the crew should follow instructions. Mr Yong agreed and stopped allowing staff to use the door.
Two weeks later, on 2 October 2025, the HR manager summonsed Mr Yong to a meeting and informed him the company had decided to dismiss him immediately for serious misconduct, citing four grounds: undermining another supervisor in a disciplinary meeting, overstepping personal and professional boundaries, not following the leave application process, and allowing staff to use the side door. Mr Yong was not paid notice.
Mr Yong had received no prior warnings. A text message from the HR manager the previous day had asked him to "discuss some items," with no indication of what the meeting would be about. The Commissioner found the decision to dismiss had already been made before the meeting, and that Mr Yong was not given an opportunity to respond.
Mr Yong disputed the accuracy of the meeting minutes on several points, including that the HR manager informed him of the dismissal at the start of the meeting rather than after the discussion of the four issues, and that the personal and professional boundaries discussion was specifically about socialising with subordinates outside work hours. The Commissioner found Mr Yong to be an honest and credible witness.
On the door, the Commissioner stated: "It is unclear how UGC expected employees to know that the door had been designated as an evacuation path when firstly, it was not communicated to the employees, and secondly, a shackled door is not generally considered a safe or sensible part of an evacuation plan."
The Commissioner further observed: "It seems to me that staff using the side door is less of an issue to any safety evacuation plan than UGC shackling the door without explanation."
The remaining three grounds were each addressed. Mr Yong speaking out during a disciplinary meeting he had not been briefed about was not tactful, but not grounds for dismissal. The personal and professional boundaries allegation lacked specifics. And Mr Yong's explanation for his leave application, including that the process had recently changed and the managing director had been unavailable, was accepted.
UGC had 22 employees at the time but claimed compliance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, which applies to employers with fewer than 15. The Commissioner found the code did not apply, and that even if it did, UGC had not demonstrated compliance. UGC did not attend the hearing and had not engaged with the Commission since 23 December 2025.
Mr Yong found new employment on 17 November 2025 at the same rate of pay. The compensation of $39,498.90 represented the statutory cap of 26 weeks' remuneration, payable within 14 days of the decision.
The case underscores that safety directives require clear communication to staff and that a predetermined dismissal outcome does not satisfy procedural fairness, regardless of whether the employer has dedicated HR resources.
