The employer waited nine months to act on the crash - and the delay counted against it
A hospital worker whose car crashed into an emergency department entrance can't be sacked over it yet - a tribunal has blocked it for now.
A long-serving administrative worker cannot be dismissed over a car crash in a hospital's ambulance bay - at least for now. On July 8, 2026, the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales blocked her employer from acting on that specific threat while her case is heard.
The worker had spent 22 years with South Western Sydney Local Health District, most recently as an administrative officer in a hospital emergency department. In August 2025, she drove into the ambulance bay to collect a forgotten coat. She thought the car had stopped when she got out. It kept rolling and struck the glass doors at the entrance. The fact of the crash isn't disputed; whether she was at fault is.
Nine months later, a show-cause letter dated May 5, 2026 proposed findings that the incident amounted to "serious misconduct" and raised the prospect of termination. The letter put the repair cost at "$20,709.20" and quoted a remark she was said to have made to a colleague: "I wasn't trying to kill you by the way."
Instead of waiting to be dismissed, the worker treated the letter as a threat to sack her and filed an unfair dismissal application. Through the Health Services Union, she also brought a separate victimisation claim, arguing the disciplinary action was tied to her being a vocal union delegate during a 2025 roster dispute and a collective grievance. The employer disputes that, and it has not been decided. The union's own motion was dismissed by consent.
The Commission wasn't deciding whether she was guilty of anything. At this stage its task was narrower - whether to keep her employed while the case is heard. That came down to two questions: did she have an arguable case (a "prima facie case"), and which side would be worse off in the meantime (the "balance of convenience").
On the first, the Deputy President found she had an arguable case, mainly on the basis that dismissal could be "harsh" given her age, her 22 years of service without prior findings against her, and the financial hardship dismissal could cause. On the second, the balance tipped her way - "but only just" - because losing her job would create losses she might not be able to recover on two car leases tied to her salary.
There's a clear signal here for HR. A threat to dismiss can be challenged before anyone is actually dismissed. And moving slowly on alleged misconduct can cost an employer ground: the Commission noted the incident was nearly a year old while the worker kept working full time, so a few more months of employment would cause the district little inconvenience.
The Commission also called it "unfortunate" that the employer disclosed the worker's backpay entitlement only the day before the hearing, suggesting earlier disclosure might have affected the earlier attempt to settle the matter.
The order is interlocutory - a temporary measure, not a final decision. The Commission has not ruled on whether the worker committed misconduct, or whether any dismissal would be unfair or amount to victimisation. Those questions are for a final hearing, and the restraint lasts only until that hearing or a further order of the Commission. It applies only to the ambulance bay incident and does not stop the district from following its ordinary processes on separate, unrelated matters.
