Workplace hazing is no longer just 'part of the culture,' FWC signals
A senior Jetstar engineer left two apprentices stranded six metres in the air. The Fair Work Commission called it a valid reason for dismissal.
On 1 April 2026, Deputy President Clancy of the Fair Work Commission dismissed an unfair dismissal application brought by Jarrod Mcrae, an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer with 23 years of industry experience who had been employed by Jetstar Airways Pty Limited for just over two years. Mcrae appeared at the hearing without legal representation, and was terminated on 29 July 2025 following a series of conduct allegations touching on psychosocial safety and generational workplace culture.
The incident at the centre of the case occurred in Hangar 141. Mcrae pressed the emergency stop button on an elevated work platform while two apprentices were working approximately five to six metres above the ground. With the platform immobilised, the pair could not lower themselves. The Commission noted the discrepancy but found it did not affect the overall credibility. One apprentice was working on a separate platform in a different part of the hangar and could not immediately help. According to one of the apprentices, a laughing Mcrae re-appeared at the base of the platform before walking away. After roughly 10 minutes, someone else entered the hangar and brought them down. Mcrae was already in the lunchroom.
Mcrae's version was that he pressed the stop button to reduce background noise so he could speak with an one of the apprentices about his work, and that forgetting to reset the platform before walking away was an unintentional error born of frustration. The Commission did not accept this. The Senior Manager of Operations gave evidence that he had reproduced the conditions Mcrae described and remained able to communicate clearly with an employee in the platform's basket even in a full working environment. The Deputy President preferred that account.
The Commission found the conduct breached Jetstar's Cardinal Rules under the Qantas Group Standards of Conduct, which prohibit reckless participation in horseplay, skylarking or practical jokes carrying the potential to cause physical or mental harm. That finding alone, the Deputy President held, was sufficient to constitute a valid reason for dismissal.
Separate allegations also featured in the case. These included Mcrae making comments to one of the apprentices in February 2025 referencing apprentices tolerating abuse, asking "Were you hit much as a kid?" and yelling at one of the apprentices "Oi, take it to the carpark, be a man." A further incident involved Mcrae lurching from his seat and waving his hands in the apprentices face while riding together in a utility vehicle, an exchange also witnessed by another of the apprentices. The Commission found these incidents occurred but concluded they would not, standing alone, have warranted dismissal.
An apprentices evidence to the Commission was direct. They told the tribunal: "Jarrod made me feel like coming to work was unsafe for me and that I should not voice my concerns in fear of being negatively perceived by him and others. I fear/feared [sic] that he may take physical action against me for speaking up against him."
Deputy President Clancy observed that Mcrae "is in an ever-decreasing minority that still thinks apprentice hazing is funny and something that should just be accepted," adding that he seemingly has "no conception" that for certain individuals it can be "extremely damaging."
Mcrae had also received a prior formal warning in February 2024 for refusing to undertake drug or alcohol testing after being observed sleeping in an aircraft cabin during his shift. Jetstar also determined that as a result of the refusal, Mcrae had attended work with a drug or alcohol level at or above the cut-off under its Drug and Alcohol Management Plan.
The case offers several clear signals for HR leaders. A single serious safety breach can on its own support a valid dismissal, even where other conduct allegations fall short of that threshold. Tribunals are also scrutinising power imbalances between senior and junior staff more closely, and conduct once brushed off as workplace banter or a rite of passage carries real legal exposure. A defensible dismissal process, one that gives employees a genuine opportunity to respond at every stage, remains non-negotiable.
