System failure: Worker fired after $200k error, but was she really to blame for the incident?

FWC examines whether dismissal was fair after multiple system failures

System failure: Worker fired after $200k error, but was she really to blame for the incident?

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving a pit technician who was terminated following an incident that resulted in significant gold ore loss at a Western Australian mine site. The case centred on whether the worker's dismissal was justified given her role in the mining error.

The worker argued that she was unfairly dismissed after being blamed for a mining incident that occurred due to systematic failures and errors by multiple employees, including more senior and experienced staff members. She maintained that she followed proper procedures with the information and equipment available to her during her night shift duties.

The employer disputed these claims, arguing that the worker failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the correct mining location and that her actions directly contributed to the loss of valuable gold ore.

Background of the case

The worker started employment as a pit technician in October 2023 at a gold mining operation. She had a background in hairdressing and DJing, with only 15 months of experience in the mining sector. Pit technicians were the lowest in seniority and typically the least qualified members of the geology team.

On 7 January 2025, an incident occurred involving the wrong mining location being marked out by three other members of the geology department during day shift. A pit technician, mine geologist and surveyor marked up a mining location using the markup design for a different mining location. The dig map for the intended location had not yet been created, and the surveyor mistakenly used the dig map for a different area that had already been mined.

The worker flew to site that afternoon to start her roster, with her first shift being a night shift. She did not receive paperwork, maps and handover documentation during the pre-start meeting, but received the handover documentation after the meeting at the front of the mining office.

System error or worker's negligence? 

According to the senior geologist, the handover sheet informed the worker that two mining locations were to be mined. However, there is no dispute that the worker was not provided with a dig map for one of the locations.

The senior geologist conceded that the day crew had failed to notice they did not have a dig map for the area to be mined: "Good question. All I can lead it down to is we didn't have the maps with us during the day shift. So we assumed what the oncoming crew –sorry -the leaving crew did was right and accurate."

In the early hours of 8 January 2025, an excavator operator contacted the worker to inform her he was nearing what he believed to be a block containing ore. When the worker arrived at the wrongly marked location, a significant amount of dirt had already been excavated during day shift.

The worker said excavation had disturbed the ribbons and painted markings making identifying the mining location difficult, further hampered by poor light and the fact that it was the early hours of the morning.

As a consequence of the error, an estimated 54 ounces of gold worth $200,000 was taken to waste piles rather than being processed. A portion of the lost ore was mined during day shift before the worker commenced her shift.

Employer's investigation into the system failure

The next morning, another employee discovered the error when the relative level of mining did not match what should have been mined. Production was stopped and the senior geologist was informed. Investigation revealed that the surveyor had used the wrong file to markup the mining location.

An investigation commenced and the worker was requested to provide an incident report on 9 January 2025. She continued normal duties until 13 January 2025 when she was stood down on full pay pending completion of the investigation. The worker was sent an allegation letter on 14 January 2025, along with two other employees.

On 21 January 2025, investigations regarding the other staff members were finalised. The surveyor who marked out the wrong mining location was given a first and final written warning. The pit technician was dismissed for unrelated reasons. The geologist who assisted the surveyor had earlier resigned during the investigation.

Framework for dismissal disputes

The worker was dismissed on 22 January 2025. The human resource director's evidence was: "The decision was made that [the worker] could not be trusted to carry out her duties appropriately, as such, the company no longer had faith and confidence in [the worker's] ability to perform her role to a satisfactory standard."

The employer took into account the worker's performance history, including a written warning for a speeding incident and various alleged performance issues. However, the only documentary evidence of performance warnings was for the speeding incident.

The senior geologist's email following a December 2024 discussion had the tone of a "coaching session" only and did not mention potential disciplinary consequences.

Despite alleged performance concerns, the worker was awarded a 23% salary increase in July 2024. The letter contained a handwritten note: "THX JL –Really Appreciate All You Do For Us!" The human resource director said the amount was discounted due to performance concerns, but the worker denied having such a conversation.

Is there a valid reason for dismissal?

The FWC found that the employer had not established a valid reason for dismissal. The decision stated: "While there might possibly have been an opportunity for [the worker] to identify the error in the mining location, I am not satisfied that her failure to do so was sufficiently serious to constitute a valid reason for her termination in all the circumstances, particularly when considered in the light of the conduct of others who were not disciplined or dismissed."

The FWC noted that the worker "was the last line of defence in a chain of successive failures of systems and employees." The senior geologist conceded: "So you can confirm, like, it goes through a ladder of people until it gets to me for that mark-up to be correct?---Yes. Yes. The problem or the incident is definitely not entirely your fault. There were a lot of failures that occurred prior to you."

The FWC concluded: "I am satisfied that the dismissal of [the worker] was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. It was harsh in its consequences given the personal and economic circumstances of [the worker] and the impact of those circumstances on her capacity to secure alternative employment. It was disproportionate given the human and systematic flaws which contributed to the incident and as compared to the treatment of other employees."

The worker was awarded 16 weeks' compensation.