Even with a clean record and genuine apology, the comments were too egregious to overlook
A mining worker's graphic sexual talk over workplace radio cost him his job, even after apologizing and maintaining a spotless three-year record.
Garth Saunders lost his unfair dismissal claim on February 5, 2026, after the Fair Work Commission found that sexually explicit conversations broadcast over two-way radio at Jellinbah Mining's Queensland site gave the company valid grounds for termination.
The case turned on radio exchanges between midnight and 3:30 AM on April 24 and 25, 2025. According to the show cause letter, Saunders made comments about asking a worker's partner if they would do MDMA to encourage anal sex, suggested a worker finger themselves in front of their sexual partner and film a reaction of their sexual partner during intercourse "so we can all enjoy it," and told someone to "give her a few wines" while discussing a partner's reluctance to perform a sexual act.
The conversations happened just six months after Jellinbah rolled out what Deputy President Butler called "quite robust training" in October 2024 addressing two-way radio conduct. Training slides warned that discussions of any sexual nature were unacceptable, regardless of crew or audience. The message was blunt: "There is zero tolerance of offensive language, demeaning or harassing content, excluding behaviour, and/or intimidating behaviour."
New policies from January 2024, including a Sexual Harassment and Hostile Working Environments Policy, made clear that breaches could end in termination.
When confronted, Saunders took full responsibility. His written response on May 12, 2025 apologized for offending people and acknowledged wrongdoing. He said he was "very sorry and embarrassed" and called the incident "an awakening." His family depended on his single income. He lived locally in Blackwater.
It wasn't enough.
Jellinbah terminated his employment on May 21, 2025, offering five weeks pay instead of notice. When Saunders asked to resign rather than be fired, the company agreed. This sparked a legal dispute over whether he'd actually been dismissed.
The Commission dismissed that objection, finding the employment was clearly ended at the employer's initiative. Even if technically a resignation, it was one forced by conduct meant to end the employment.
Saunders tried several defenses. His supervisor was on the radio during some exchanges, even laughing at one point, he argued, suggesting the conduct was accepted. Others said similar things but weren't disciplined, he claimed. He disputed whether his MDMA comment connected to the sexual discussion, saying he'd been talking about podcasts on couples therapy.
The Commission rejected everything. Deputy President Butler found that even with supervisors present, the October 2024 training had specifically warned that silence at the time "does not infer that the behaviour is welcome or that it is acceptable for the behaviour to continue at another time."
On inconsistent treatment, the Commission acknowledged colleagues may have made inappropriate comments too, but found Saunders' admitted remarks were "so significant" that any inconsistency didn't overcome the reasons for dismissal.
The Commission concluded the comments were "egregious in and of themselves," made worse by recent training and new policies. They could harm others and create legal liability for the employer. The show cause process was procedurally fair, with chances to respond in writing and at interview, plus an offer to hear the full recordings.
What this means for workplace culture managers: clear policies, documented training, and consistent enforcement can survive unfair dismissal claims even when employees have clean records and show genuine remorse. The medium matters too. What's broadcast on open workplace channels carries different weight than private conversations.
