GPS evidence and an off-duty incident delivered the decisive blow
A Queensland civil contractor dismissed a FIFO worker after its client revoked his site access — and the Fair Work Commission agreed.
Jason Nikora had been a plant operator with Black Cat Civil since June 2022, working a fly-in fly-out roster at Caval Ridge Mine in Queensland. By mid-2025, three issues had put his employment in jeopardy: repeated speeding on site, a confrontation with his supervisor at Moranbah Airport, and an allegation that he had urinated behind camp accommodation.
Mining client BMA pulled his site access on July 14, 2025, citing the airport incident and camp behaviour. Black Cat Civil issued a show cause notice the same day and terminated Nikora's employment on July 16, 2025. He filed an unfair dismissal application initially seeking reinstatement, before subsequently amending his claim to seek compensation.
Commissioner Simpson, sitting in Brisbane, dismissed the application on February 20, 2026.
The speeding was the clearest cut issue. GPS fleet data showed Nikora had exceeded onsite speed limits, which ranged from 20 to 60 kilometres per hour, on three separate occasions between June 26 and July 1, 2025. His supervisor had already spoken to him about speeding on multiple prior occasions, and the supervisor's own email to management described it as "a bit of a pattern around not knowing how to slow down and abide by sites speed limits." When a further complaint came in on July 11, 2025, management had both objective data and a documented history of prior warnings to rely on. The Commissioner found that the repeated conduct, if continued unchecked after Nikora had already been warned, "presents a potential risk to himself and others at the site."
The airport incident added serious weight. On July 1, 2025, Nikora and colleagues had spent time at a pub before heading to Moranbah Airport to fly out. CCTV footage — submitted after the initial hearing due to technical issues — showed Nikora animated in the airport lounge before his supervisor arrived. The footage captured him grabbing towards his supervisor's arm and placing his arm around him several times. The Commissioner found, on the balance of probabilities, that Nikora initiated the altercation, not his supervisor, and that the exchange appeared to be a continuation of an earlier dispute about a site transfer.
Nikora argued the airport incident was irrelevant because it happened off the clock. The Commissioner disagreed, noting that BMA staff witnessed and reported it, it occurred at an airport all FIFO workers must pass through, and the incident was "likely to cause damage to the Respondent's business or reputation, particularly with its client BMA, and also negatively affect other employees."
The urination allegation, however, did not survive scrutiny. No direct witness evidence was called to support it, and the Commissioner was not satisfied it was proven on the balance of probabilities.
The investigation itself drew pointed criticism. The show cause letter lacked specificity, key witnesses were never asked for statements, and the speeding details were not put to Nikora in enough detail for him to respond properly. But none of that proved fatal to the employer's case. The Commissioner found that the evidence which subsequently came to light made it "very clear that the outcome would not have been different concerning the incident at Moranbah Airport."
The dismissal stood.
People and culture professionals will find a few useful reference points here. A client's decision to pull site access does not automatically justify dismissal on its own; employers still need independent, documented grounds. In this case, GPS data and a documented pattern of prior warnings gave Black Cat Civil exactly that foundation. Where employers tend to expose themselves is in the investigation process itself — vague allegations, rushed timelines, and witnesses left uncontacted all featured here, and while they did not change the outcome this time, they easily could have in a closer case. The decision also reinforces that off-duty conduct remains within scope where it involves colleagues, clients, and a shared work environment.
