Valid reason met, dismissal still unfair - what the Commission flagged
Sleeping on the job cost a Sydney security guard his job. A tribunal says the sacking went too far.
The Fair Work Commission has ordered MSS Security Pty Limited to pay compensation to a former security surveillance officer summarily dismissed after being found asleep in his car on an overnight shift, in a decision handed down on May 19, 2026.
Chanaka Ranawakage worked nights for MSS on its Sydney Trains contract, patrolling rail property to deter trespassers and graffiti. On October 13, 2025, around 1:00am, a supervisor found him asleep in his personal vehicle at Waverton Station with a sports match playing on his phone. MSS terminated his employment on October 22, 2025 for serious misconduct.
Deputy President Wright agreed MSS had a valid reason to dismiss. Ranawakage's contract listed sleeping at work as grounds for summary dismissal, and the company's standing instructions described it as "one of the most serious offences an employee can commit." Shown the supervisor's video at the disciplinary meeting, Ranawakage accepted he had been asleep.
Even so, Wright found the dismissal harsh and unjust. The reasoning is the part HR leaders will want to read closely.
First, the conduct was not deliberate. Ranawakage had been on his crib break when he fell asleep, and the Commission accepted he was permitted to watch sport on his phone during a break as long as he could respond to camera alerts. MSS confirmed it had no concerns about his performance or conduct before that night.
Second, the circumstances were unusual. Ranawakage was driving his own vehicle that night - with permission from Sydney Trains - because his shift partner had told him his children had chickenpox. Ranawakage has five children, aged one to 14, and did not want to bring an infection home. Wright noted that if he had been in the joint patrol vehicle with his partner, as was standard, it was unlikely he would have fallen asleep at all, because his partner's presence would have prevented it or woken him at the earliest signs. The Commission described the incident as a one-off unlikely to recur.
Third, MSS did not factor in his clean record. The company tied his conduct to broader concerns Sydney Trains had raised about the wider surveillance team, but in evidence the contract manager confirmed Ranawakage was not the subject of those earlier complaints, and the company had never told him about them.
The Commission also flagged process gaps. MSS did not call Ranawakage's shift partner to give evidence and did not interview him during the investigation. The Commission said MSS had relied on his email and Ranawakage's response alone for one of the allegations. Two of the three allegations against Ranawakage were not substantiated at hearing.
Wright also picked up that Ranawakage was not paid between October 14 and 22, 2025 during the investigation period. MSS rectified that about four months after the dismissal.
The Commission ordered five weeks' pay plus superannuation, reduced by one week for the misconduct that did contribute to the decision to dismiss. MSS must pay by June 2, 2026. Ranawakage had started his own business within six weeks of the dismissal, which the Commission accepted as reasonable mitigation.
The case is a clean reminder that a valid reason on paper is not the whole story. Proportionality, procedural rigour and an employee's record still carry weight.
