Despite a flawed dismissal process, Fair Work found a refrigerated transport driver's sacking was justified
The Fair Work Commission has dismissed an unfair dismissal application from a linehaul truck driver who was sacked after an entire ice cream load defrosted due to an incorrectly set trailer temperature, costing his employer more than $100,000.
Commissioner Sloan found the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, despite identifying a procedural irregularity in the way the transport company had carried out the termination.
A $100,000 mistake on the Melbourne run
The driver had worked as a linehaul truck driver for the refrigerated transport company since November 2022, completing an estimated 600 trips between Wagga Wagga and Melbourne.
On December 3, 2025, he was tasked with collecting ice cream from a cold storage facility at Truganina in Melbourne and returning it to Wagga Wagga, where another driver would take over for the final leg to Sydney.
The load sheet for the job specified the trailer had to be maintained at -22 degrees Celsius. It was the driver's responsibility to turn on the fridge motor and set the temperature before departure. Instead, the trailer remained at approximately -1 degree Celsius throughout his portion of the trip.
The company's night manager identified the error remotely through its telematics provider on December 4 and corrected the temperature setting.
By then, however, the damage was done. The entire load had defrosted and had to be disposed of, with the value of the lost goods recorded at $73,796 and disposal costs adding a further $30,000.
The driver was dismissed on December 8 and received a payment in lieu of notice. He filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission on December 20.
Was the termination valid?
The driver argued at the FWC that his employer had not established that he was solely responsible for the loss.
He pointed to the cold storage facility's own policy of not loading trucks unless the trailer temperature was at -12 degrees or below, questioning how his truck had been loaded given the temperature readings.
He also noted that the driver who completed the Sydney leg of the trip had also been dismissed.
Commissioner Sloan rejected that argument.
"It is not necessary for [the driver] to have been solely responsible for the situation in order for [the employer] to have had a valid reason to dismiss him. He can still be held to account for what he did or did not do," the commissioner said in the ruling.
Sloan found the driver had failed to set the trailer to the correct temperature and had missed six opportunities to check it during the trip, including at departure, during loading at Truganina, and upon return to Wagga Wagga.
But the Commission did find fault with the dismissal process.
Evidence from the driver and his support person established that he had been informed his employment was being terminated before he was asked to provide an explanation.
The commissioner also confirmed the company's People and Culture Manager had decided to dismiss the driver prior to the meeting.
"There was a procedural irregularity in the process that [the employer] took to effect that dismissal," Sloan said.
"However, when weighed in the balance in the circumstances of this case… it was not so significant as to render the dismissal unfair."
