Why FWC called out a fraud warning and rejected a safety veto
A steel mill worker’s “fraud” warning has been ruled unreasonable by the Fair Work Commission, which also rejected his employer’s attempt to veto his safety role.
In a decision issued on 30 December 2025, Commissioner Tran in [2025] FWC 3874 examined how SSX Services Pty Ltd, trading as Infrabuild Steel Laverton Steel Mill, handled both a disciplinary process and a workplace safety appointment under its enterprise agreement.
The case involved Melt Shop Operator and Health and Safety Representative Jaydan Brandon. On 11 December 2024, Brandon attended a quarterly Workforce Consultation Meeting at the Laverton Steel Mill. On the union-prepared attendance sheet for that meeting, he wrote “2” in the column headed “OT HRS 1 OR 4.” The company later took the view he should have claimed only one hour, because the meeting was scheduled at the end of his rostered shift.
Brandon said he had relied on union flyers advertising the meetings. Each flyer described the session as a “PAID MEETING” and told members there would be a “Four hour min for those coming in off shift” and “Hour-by-hour for those staying back.” The Australian Workers’ Union later wrote to the company acknowledging that this advice was erroneous and accepting responsibility for the confusion, noting that Brandon had been on site for the two hours he recorded.
On 10 January 2025, Brandon attended a meeting with company representatives about his claimed hours. While there is some disagreement over the precise wording used, it was common ground that the company raised “wage theft,” put to him that he had incorrectly claimed two hours, and discussed how other employees had recorded their hours for that and earlier meetings, as well as relevant enterprise agreement clauses. Brandon asked the company to check his clock-in and clock-out times and, according to his contemporaneous handwritten notes, said he was happy to receive only one hour’s pay.
On 27 February 2025, after further discussions and correspondence, the company issued him with a first written warning for “Breach of Fraud Policy” in relation to “claiming additional overtime for attending a meeting on 11 December 2024.” The letter stated his actions contravened the fraud policy, including dishonest activity involving deception resulting in actual or potential financial loss, and providing false or misleading information to the company.
The Commission found that warning was not reasonable. Commissioner Tran held that the company did not follow the disciplinary procedure in clause 21 of the Infrabuild Steel Laverton Steel Mill Enterprise Agreement 2021–2025 because it failed to put the specific fraud and dishonesty allegations to Brandon during the disciplinary interview, as required by step (ii). The company had raised incorrect timekeeping and used the phrase “wage theft,” but did not clearly state that a breach of the fraud policy was alleged until the outcome was delivered.
The Commission also concluded that the written warning was disproportionate. While Brandon had put down incorrect hours, the decision found he did not do so dishonestly, and that the union flyers may have misled him.
The dispute also extended to Brandon’s nomination for the role of OHS Co-ordinator. He was the only nominee and was voted into that position by the workforce at a Mass Meeting on 26 February 2025. On 14 March 2025, the company wrote to him and the union stating it had vetoed his application under clause 17(b)(v) of the agreement, referring, among other things, to the written warning issued on 27 February.
The Commission held it was not open to the company to exercise that veto when it did. It found the employer had ample opportunity to review Brandon’s nomination, raise any concerns through the consultative mechanisms in clause 15 and exercise a veto on reasonable grounds, but had not done so in the period after being told he was a nominee and after being told he was the only nominee and had been voted into the role.
To help resolve the ongoing dispute about the OHS Co-ordinator position, the Commission recommended that the union and the company consult to finalise selection criteria and a job description for the role, as well as a clearer selection process and timelines for nominations, company review, any veto and challenges to a veto under clause 17(b) of the agreement.
For HR leaders, the decision underlines that where serious findings such as dishonesty are being considered, those allegations need to be put to the employee with clarity, and the response should be proportionate to what actually occurred. It also highlights that where enterprise agreements give management rights such as a veto, those rights are expected to be exercised within the agreed consultative framework and within a reasonable period, rather than after a process has effectively run its course.
