Good policies and a structured investigation made all the difference
Rail worker fired for Nazi salutes at a station. The Fair Work Commission just backed the employer.
A train driver was fired after performing Nazi salutes on a station platform. His employer's response held up in full.
On 6 March 2025, Eric Jordan, a Pacific National train driver who had worked in the rail industry since 2007, was waiting on the platform at Mittagong Railway Station when he extended his arm twice at a 45-degree angle, palm facing down, toward two passing trains from competing operators. Witnesses from both trains recognised it as a Nazi salute and reported the incident to their employers.
Jordan denied it. His explanation: the gesture was a standard "all clear" hand signal, used in the rail industry to indicate a track is safe. He held that position through an internal investigation and into Fair Work Commission proceedings.
Pacific National terminated his employment on 26 May 2025. Jordan applied for an unfair dismissal remedy on 16 June 2025, arguing the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. On 18 February 2026, Deputy President Cross dismissed the application.
What set this case apart was the CCTV footage. The Commission had access to CCTV footage from the platform, and Deputy President Cross was unequivocal: "The CCTV footage is clear and compelling."
The footage showed Jordan extending his arm fully at 45 degrees before each train arrived, then lowering it as the train passed. A female colleague standing nearby simply waved. That contrast was hard to dismiss.
Jordan's own expert witness, a train crew compliance officer from Sydney Trains, conceded under cross-examination that he would never instruct a student to perform the gesture the way Jordan did, and that it looks similar to a Nazi salute. Separately, the police officer who investigated the incident told the Commission he would have charged Jordan had willing witnesses come forward.
Jordan himself, when asked during proceedings whether such conduct warrants dismissal, answered: "If they actually did it, yes."
The Commission found that Pacific National's Code of Conduct, which Jordan had signed, and its Respect Policy explicitly prohibited discriminatory behaviour, harassment, and conduct likely to bring the company into disrepute. The company followed a structured process from allegation through to termination, and procedural fairness was found to have been afforded throughout.
Deputy President Cross noted that Jordan was not found to harbour Nazi sympathies. The gestures were characterised as deeply inappropriate rather than ideologically driven. That finding did not change the outcome.
What this case signals to the profession is straightforward. Conduct in a public setting, while identifiable as a company representative, sits firmly within the reach of workplace policy. The termination was also considered in the context of Jordan's existing disciplinary record — he had been issued a Final Written Warning just weeks earlier, on 17 April 2025, for failing to follow a management direction regarding signing on and off from rostered shifts. That warning expressly put him on notice that any further instances of unacceptable behaviour could lead to termination, and it was explicitly taken into account in the decision to dismiss. Serious misconduct, compounded by an active final warning, will substantially strengthen the grounds for a lawful termination.
Pacific National's position held because two things were in order: clear, signed policy documentation and a structured investigation process. In misconduct cases of this gravity, that combination tends to be the deciding factor.
