Twelve years, zero warnings, nine allegations, one very expensive firing
Metcash promoted a floor salesman to store manager after 12 years of loyal service - then sacked him less than six months later.
The Fair Work Commission found the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable, ordering compensation of $40,752.50 plus superannuation in a decision handed down on October 14, 2026.
The worker started at Metcash Trading Limited's Mitre 10 store in Katoomba, New South Wales, in September 2013 as a floor salesman. Over the next dozen years he climbed through department specialist, supervisor, duty manager, retail manager and assistant manager before landing the top job - store manager - on June 30, 2025. In all that time, he had never once been disciplined.
Two months into the new role, things unravelled fast.
On August 26, 2025, the worker attended what his regional operations manager later described in an email as an informal meeting. The group operations manager's email after that meeting struck an encouraging note: "Nobody is doubting your giving 100% or your best Dave. We are trying to work with you to provide clear metrics and then support you in completing."
Those clear metrics and that support never came.
The worker then took six weeks of annual leave. On his first day back - October 20, 2025 - he was called straight into a meeting, suspended on the spot, and told to front a formal meeting within 24 hours. He waived the waiting period. Nine allegations were put to him in writing that same day.
The charges ranged from fabricating safety records and acting dishonestly about a committee meeting through to failing to complete stock counts, safety inspections, e-learning modules and various administrative tasks. The most serious - fabrication and dishonesty - were conduct allegations, not just a conversation about performance.
The worker provided written responses. He was then asked to explain why his employment should not be terminated. On December 18, 2025, he was fired on the spot - no notice period, no payment in lieu.
Then came the hearing.
The Commission worked through all nine allegations and found the employer's case was far weaker than it looked on paper.
The centrepiece was the claim that the worker had fabricated two critical risk reviews recorded in the company's Evotix digital safety system on a Sunday when the trade yard was closed. The Commission accepted his evidence that the reviews were carried out earlier in August and simply uploaded to Evotix on that Sunday. Colleagues corroborated that the underlying safety work - including a forklift hazard assessment that led to concrete pallets being relocated in the trade yard - actually happened. Two of the employer's own witnesses, when asked in cross-examination what a critical risk review even was, effectively admitted they had never done one. The Commission gave their denials no weight.
The dishonesty allegation fared no better. The employer said the worker falsely reported completing an August safety committee meeting that never took place. The Commission found the meeting did happen - on Thursday, August 21, 2025 - with two attendees whose evidence it accepted as truthful and reliable. The worker had simply entered the wrong date on Evotix when he uploaded the records three days later.
On both counts, the Commission found the alleged conduct "did not occur" and called the date-entry errors "trivial misdemeanours."
Of the remaining seven allegations, the Commission made adverse findings on five - but each came with caveats. Nineteen of 62 required site safety inspections were not logged in Evotix during August, though physical safety oversight was maintained on the ground. GAP scans were missed for three weeks. E-learning compliance dipped temporarily below the 95% threshold in June and July. A stock range review was delayed. And one workplace injury was reported by text message to the wrong manager rather than by phone call to the right one - non-compliance the Commission assessed as "moderate," not a failure to report.
Two allegations fell away entirely. The cycle count shortfall was put down to miscommunication, and the Commission found there was not enough evidence the employer had suffered any financial loss - noting the employer's own figures were inconsistent, citing $200,000 in its original letter but $300,000 through its group operations manager at hearing. A late toolbox talk was found to have been caused by an unrealistic one-week deadline.
The Commission accepted there was a valid reason for dismissal based on the totality of the remaining performance issues. But two factors tipped the scales.
First, no warning. The worker had never been disciplined in 12 years. The informal August meeting was not a warning - the Commission called it "the genesis for dismissal." The employer moved from an encouraging email about providing support to termination in under four months, with no formal performance management steps in between.
Second, the punishment did not fit the problem. The adverse findings were bunched in a two-month window - June to September 2025 - barely after the worker's promotion to store manager. The Commission found the employer did not give a newly appointed manager a reasonable period to improve, and the promised "clear metrics and support" were never delivered.
For HR teams, the case is a sharp reminder: promoting an employee and then firing them months later over administrative shortfalls - without warnings, without support, and without time to grow into the role - is a sequence the Commission will not accept, even where some performance issues are real.
The matter was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission. The Commission found the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and ordered compensation of $40,752.50 plus superannuation. An order will be issued separately to this decision.
