FWC upholds termination despite worker's clean employment record
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving a maintenance technician with over 40 years of experience who was dismissed following multiple safety breaches during a single shift.
The worker argued that his dismissal was harsh, pointing to his unblemished employment record spanning nearly six years with the employer.
He also contended that fatigue played a role in his actions, as it was his first day back following a seven-week break for a work-related injury, and that other employees who committed similar breaches received less severe penalties.
Despite these arguments, the case ultimately hinged on whether the worker's multiple safety violations justified termination, especially given his senior role as a crew trainer responsible for teaching others the very safety procedures he had failed to follow.
The worker was employed as a maintenance technician at Bengalla Mining Company's open cut coal mine in Muswellbrook, New South Wales. He was dismissed in December 2024 for isolation-related failures that occurred during a night shift in November 2024.
The incidents took place on the worker's first day back after recovering from a work-related injury. He had returned on "light duties" with the understanding he would perform crew training rather than hands-on maintenance work.
During his shift, the worker breached the "Golden Rule 1" ("never work on equipment without first applying your personal lock(s) as per isolation procedures") four times over about two hours. These breaches involved entering the footprint of a haul truck without properly isolating the equipment.
The employer operates in a safety-critical industry where workers handle large, dangerous equipment. The maintenance manager explained why isolation procedures matter:
"The scale and nature of the machinery worked on in the workshop at the Bengalla mine mean that there are a range of risks, including risks of exposure to hazardous energy sources such as high voltage electricity, significant pressures in hydraulic systems, extreme heat and unplanned movement. This means that maintenance technicians need to be highly vigilant."
The worker wasn't just aware of these requirements—he trained others on them. He was among the most experienced team members and served as the crew trainer for his team.
The breaches were discovered after a serious incident during the same shift when a hydraulic hose failed and was ejected 38 metres behind a truck. This prompted a review of CCTV footage, which revealed the worker's safety violations.
With nearly six years at the company and over four decades in mining, the worker had an unblemished record. As a crew trainer, he was responsible for teaching isolation procedures to other technicians.
The worker admitted breaching both Golden Rule 1 and the Isolation Procedure by repeatedly entering the truck's footprint without applying his isolation lock. When asked during the investigation about contributing factors that led to his breaches, he stated, "fatigue would be the biggest one, a bit of complacency there for sure."
Although assigned only training duties for his return, the worker became involved in troubleshooting a haul truck with hydraulic system problems. This led him to enter the truck's footprint four separate times without proper isolation.
A key argument was whether the worker faced inconsistent treatment compared to colleagues who committed similar breaches. Two other maintenance technicians received only final written warnings for isolation-related breaches during the same period.
The FWC found the different treatment justified. The maintenance manager testified that the worker committed four separate breaches, while others committed just one. Additionally, the worker clearly understood the requirements, unlike his colleagues who demonstrated confusion about their obligations.
Deputy President Saunders stated: "I do not accept the submission advanced on behalf of [the worker] that his breaches of Golden Rule 1 and the Isolation Procedure were effectively a single course of conduct, or that it is an artificial point of distinction to assess [the worker] as having engaged in four isolation breaches."
Weighing all factors under section 387 of the Fair Work Act, Deputy President Saunders concluded the dismissal wasn't harsh, unjust or unreasonable. While acknowledging the worker's clean record and contrition, these factors were outweighed by the safety breaches' seriousness.
"The repeated isolation breaches by [the worker] during his night shift on 11 November 2024 were serious. They had the potential to result in significant personal injury or death," noted Deputy President Saunders.
The FWC emphasised the worker's role as a trainer: "This is not a case in which [the worker] was unaware of his obligations under Golden Rule 1 and the Isolation Procedure. [The worker] was both trained in those requirements and responsible, as a very experienced member of his team, for training other employees in those requirements."
"My assessment is that [the worker]'s summary dismissal was not disproportionate to the gravity of his misconduct," Deputy President Saunders concluded, dismissing the unfair dismissal application.
The case demonstrates that despite mitigating factors like a clean employment record, serious safety breaches can justify dismissal, particularly in high-risk industries where safety procedures directly protect lives.
