The boss admitted "everybody" would be fatigued working that regime
An equipment operator drove a company hire car home after a 12-hour shift in the Sydney summer heat - and lost his job over it.
The Fair Work Commission has found the summary dismissal was unfair, ordering Sherrin Rentals Pty Ltd to pay the worker 10.4 weeks' compensation.
The decision, handed down on September 18, 2026, turned on a collision between a clear management direction and what the Commission found was an obvious fatigue problem the employer seemed reluctant to confront.
One text message, one detour
The worker, a 58-year-old elevated work platform operator, had been with Sherrin Rentals for about 20 months when things unravelled in late January 2026.
He was assigned to a project at Holsworthy Army Barracks in southwest Sydney - 12-hour shifts, starting at 6am. His allocations manager sent a group text with the job instructions. Buried in the message was a clear direction: the hire car provided for the project was to "remain in yard after each shift."
On January 27, after finishing his shift, the worker drove the hire car to his home, south of Wollongong, instead of back to the yard at Ingleburn. He said he was fatigued.
The next day he drove the car back to the yard and then to the job site. On the way back that afternoon, he was involved in a minor accident - not his fault. He notified his manager by text and later provided a written statement and a police report.
That should have been the end of it. It was not.
The meeting that was always going to end one way
Over the following days, the company tried to schedule a post-incident welfare meeting. The worker said he turned up at the scheduled time on January 30 but the state manager was not available. Another meeting was set for February 3.
At that meeting, the state manager put questions to the worker about the extra 228.7 kilometres on the hire car's odometer and his failure to complete the company's incident report form. The worker admitted he had driven the car home without authorisation. He said he had been managing his fatigue.
According to the state manager's own evidence, the meeting lasted about 20 minutes. At its conclusion, the worker's employment was terminated on the spot.
A termination letter followed through the company's Employment Hero app, citing three grounds: unauthorised use of the hire vehicle, failure to comply with WHS incident reporting requirements, and failure to attend a post-incident safety meeting.
Two out of three reasons did not stack up
The Commission found the employer had a valid reason on one ground only - the unauthorised use of the vehicle. The worker admitted he knew the direction, understood it, and drove home anyway.
The other two fell apart under scrutiny.
On incident reporting, the Commission found the worker had done what the company's own handbook required. Section 13 of the WHS handbook asked employees to report incidents in writing and provide "assistance and full cooperation" so a supervisor could complete the incident report form. The worker sent a text, gave a written statement, and filed a police report. His only refusal was to sign the company's form without first getting union advice - which the Commission found was not a valid reason to sack someone and could have exposed the employer to an adverse action claim.
On the welfare meeting, the Commission accepted the worker's evidence that he showed up at the scheduled time but the state manager was not there. It noted the state manager also did not go looking for the worker at the appointed time.
Then came the sharp end. The Commission called the employer's entire approach to post-incident welfare checks "ridiculous." The state manager had told the hearing he did not contact workers after incidents while they were operating heavy machinery, to avoid distracting them. The Commission's response was blunt: if an employee might be stressed or affected by an incident, letting them operate heavy machinery for a full shift before checking on them suggested a workplace where "employees' safety and welfare is not a priority issue."
"Any person would be fatigued"
The working conditions sat at the centre of the case. The worker had been standing all day in 29-degree heat on a bitumen road in Holsworthy, operating an elevated work platform from ground-level controls - a role that requires constant upward observation. The state manager conceded under questioning that anyone working that regime would be fatigued.
The Commission also laid out the practical reality of the commute. After a shift ending around 6pm, returning the car to the Ingleburn yard, unlocking and relocking the facility, and then driving south to Wollongong would see the worker home by roughly 8pm - leaving about eight hours before a 4:30am departure the next morning. That window had to cover two meals, a shower, and sleep. The schedule ran for multiple consecutive days.
Driving directly from Holsworthy toward Wollongong via Heathcote Road was, the Commission observed, both shorter and safer than the route through Ingleburn and down Picton Road, which it noted is a known traffic black spot due to heavy coal truck traffic.
The supervisor who would have said yes
One piece of unchallenged evidence proved particularly telling. The worker testified that after the termination meeting, his allocations manager followed him out and said words to the effect of: "Daz, if you would have texted me and told me you were driving the car home it wouldn't have been an issue. We know you guys work long hours and drive the cars home sometimes."
The state manager disputed that the allocations manager had authority to grant that kind of permission. But the allocations manager was not called to give evidence, and the Commission accepted the worker's unchallenged account.
The Commission also accepted unchallenged evidence that another employee had used hire cars for personal purposes without approval - and noted the employer did not call that person to counter the claim.
A closed mind and no show cause letter
The Commission found the state manager had a "closed mind" going into the February 3 meeting. Two of the three termination grounds - the welfare meeting and incident reporting - still appeared in the termination letter despite being addressed or explained by the worker during the meeting.
On process, the Commission was direct. The worker received no show cause letter. He was given no time to seek advice. He walked into what he thought was a meeting about an incident and walked out without a job. Best practice, the Commission said, would have meant a written show cause notice, three or four days to respond, time for the employer to consider the response, and then a meeting with a support person present.
The opportunity to respond was, in the Commission's words, "instantaneous" - and that amounted to procedural unfairness.
The numbers
The Commission found the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable - all three.
It estimated the worker would have stayed on for another 13 weeks. That figure was reduced by 10% for contingencies and a further 10% for the worker's admitted breach of the lawful direction - landing at 10.4 weeks' pay plus superannuation, minus $200 the worker had earned from a single casual shift since being dismissed. Weekly pay was to be calculated using his average weekly income, including overtime, over the three months before termination.
The worker, 58 and a specialist in a niche field, told the Commission he had been unable to find ongoing work since being let go.
For HR teams, the practical takeaway is that a valid reason to dismiss is not the same thing as a fair dismissal - and skipping a show cause process, bundling investigation and termination into a single meeting, and enforcing rules inconsistently can turn what might have been a defensible outcome into one that is not.
