Commission looks into multiple safety hazards of phone use at work
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dismissed an unfair dismissal application involving a truck driver who was terminated after using mobile phones while uncoupling a heavy vehicle trailer.
The case arose when video footage revealed the worker violated multiple safety procedures during a decoupling operation.
He maintained that he was an honest and careful employee over 15 months of service who should have received a warning rather than dismissal for what he characterised as a minor incident.
Safety incident involves multiple policy breaches
The employment relationship involved a truck driver responsible for operating articulated vehicles and following strict safety procedures during coupling and uncoupling operations.
The worker had completed mandatory training on the company's Coupling and Uncoupling Safe Work Procedure, which explicitly stated that mobile phones must not be used and must remain in the cabin during such tasks.
On 2 May 2025, the worker was uncoupling a prime mover from its trailer but failed to detach the electrical cables before driving away, causing them to snap.
The incident triggered an internal investigation involving a review of video footage from the driver's cabin and side mirror cameras installed on the vehicle.
The worker completed an incident report following the cables snapping and acknowledged during subsequent meetings that he had forgotten to disconnect them.
He maintained that while he was speaking on a mobile phone, he had been using the truck's Bluetooth system and had not spoken on the phone while outside the cabin.
Video evidence contradicts worker's account
Analysis of video footage from multiple camera angles revealed the worker talking on a mobile phone wedged between his shirt and left shoulder while in the cabin.
The footage showed him climbing out of the vehicle with the phone still under his shirt and attending to the decoupling procedure before returning to the cabin.
Upon re-entering the cabin, video evidence showed the worker with another mobile phone in his right hand while the original device remained under his shirt.
The Commission found this demonstrated the worker was occupied with two mobile phones while operating the heavy vehicle, though he maintained he only possessed one device.
The footage also captured the worker's lips moving as he exited and re-entered the cabin, leading to findings that he was talking on the phone during the decoupling process.
The video clearly showed cables snapping as the vehicle drove away from the trailer, confirming the worker's failure to follow proper disconnection procedures.
Multiple safety policy violations established
The Commission found the worker contravened the Safe Work Procedure by taking the mobile phone outside the cabin during the decoupling process, which explicitly required phones to remain in the cabin.
The tribunal determined that even if the worker placed his call on hold while outside, he was still using a mobile phone because it remained operational and positioned on his shoulder.
The decision established that the worker was talking on his mobile phone while his vehicle was moving, which qualified as a serious motor vehicle incident under the Driver Behaviour Policy.
This policy defined serious motor vehicle incidents as including handheld mobile phone use while driving and stated such conduct warranted termination without notice.
The Commission rejected arguments that the phone being perched on the worker's shoulder rather than held in his hand made any difference to the safety violation.
The tribunal found the device was still a handheld mobile phone being used by the worker, creating dangerous distractions during heavy vehicle operations.
Serious misconduct determination supports dismissal
The enterprise agreement defined serious misconduct as including actions endangering health and safety, providing the contractual framework for assessing the worker's conduct.
The Commission found the worker's failure to observe safety rules presented obvious risks to workplace health and safety, constituting serious misconduct under the agreement provisions.
The tribunal emphasised that mobile phones create dangerous distractions for any driver, but particularly those commanding heavy vehicles, including when parked and being decoupled from trailers.
The safety rules were characterised as reasonable and important measures designed to prevent workplace injuries and incidents.
The Commission concluded that each safety contravention was individually sufficient to warrant dismissal, given the serious nature of the violations and their potential consequences.
The deliberate nature of the contraventions weighed heavily against the worker's claim that the incident was minor or should have resulted in warnings rather than termination.
Procedural fairness requirements satisfied
The disciplinary process involved investigation of the incident, show cause proceedings, and meetings with management where the worker could explain his actions.
On 19 May 2025, the worker received a letter asking him to show cause why his employment should not be terminated for mobile phone use while operating heavy vehicles and failing to follow decoupling procedures.
During a meeting on 22 May 2025, the worker maintained that he did not believe the incident was serious and denied using his mobile phone while undertaking the decoupling operation.
Management found these responses did not justify or excuse his actions, leading to the termination decision.
The Commission found the worker was properly notified of dismissal reasons, given adequate opportunities to respond to allegations, and received procedural fairness throughout the disciplinary process.
The worker's access to support persons was not restricted during proceedings.
Proportionate response despite employment history
The Commission acknowledged the worker had 15 months of service with an otherwise good employment record and that dismissal had serious financial consequences.
However, the tribunal found these factors were outweighed by the serious and deliberate nature of the safety contraventions.
The decision emphasised that termination represented a proportionate response given the circumstances, particularly the worker's failure to acknowledge the seriousness of his actions during disciplinary proceedings.
The worker's maintenance that the incident was not serious demonstrated a concerning attitude toward safety obligations.
The Commission concluded that valid reasons existed for dismissal, proper procedural fairness was provided, and the response was proportionate to the serious misconduct established through video evidence and investigation findings.
