A sleeping skipper, food dumped overboard, crew left at the helm - and still a payout
A marine tourism operator had a valid reason to dismiss one of its boat masters over safety failures - yet the sacking was ruled unfair.
In a decision handed down on July 21, 2026, the Fair Work Commission found that marine tourism operator SeaLink Whitsundays had a valid reason to dismiss one of its vessel masters over a series of safety-related lapses. The Commission also found the dismissal was not harsh or unjust. Even so, it ruled the dismissal unfair - because the disciplinary process was rushed and the allegations were treated as substantiated before the employee had a proper chance to respond.
The matter began with a deckhand's complaint. In early June 2025, a crew member emailed the operations manager about what she described as "very unsafe behaviour" by a skipper. The company escalated the complaint, and the general manager directed the people and culture manager to investigate. Within days she had spoken to several deckhands and prepared a letter of allegations.
The allegations were significant for someone responsible for a vessel carrying guests. The Commission found the master had slept on duty on two days - on one occasion for 20 to 30 minutes, audibly snoring within earshot of guests. It found he had vaped in front of guests, thrown trays of food into the water near snorkellers, and looked at his phone during snorkel watch. It also found he had allowed crew to take the helm - including one crew member the Commission found was not appropriately qualified - without keeping them in his line of sight. The Commission described the conduct as a pattern showing "wilful disregard" for company rules and a "lackadaisical approach toward safety."
On the substance, the Commission held the employer was entitled to act. It found there was a valid reason for the dismissal and that reinstatement would be inappropriate, given the safety concerns and the loss of trust and confidence.
The difficulty lay in the process. The master was called to what he was told was a "chat" and handed a letter of allegations "unofficially." During that meeting the general manager said the allegations were "pretty founded" - before the master had responded and before two crew members had confirmed their accounts. The Commission found the company had combined two steps that should be kept separate: the letter inviting a response to allegations, and the show-cause letter that should only follow once allegations are substantiated.
As the Commission put it, an employee "should be given an opportunity to respond before allegations are found to be substantiated." Here, the assessment that the conduct was made out appeared to have been reached first. The master was also not given a chance to argue that, even if the conduct occurred, dismissal was not the appropriate outcome.
The Commission drew a distinction based on the employer's size. It noted it might extend more leniency to a small operator using a flawed process. But this employer was an ASX-listed company, and its "rushed and appended disciplinary process" was unreasonable and caused some unfairness.
Having found the dismissal unfair, the Commission turned to remedy. It calculated average weekly earnings of $1,239.14 and found the employment would likely have continued for another six weeks had the process been handled properly - $7,434.84. Because the Commission was satisfied the master had engaged in misconduct that contributed to his dismissal, it reduced that amount by 30 percent, arriving at $5,204.39. The employer was ordered to pay that sum, less tax and plus superannuation, within 21 days.
For HR teams, the decision is a reminder that a sound reason to dismiss does not, on its own, make a dismissal fair. The steps matter: investigate, put the allegations, allow a genuine response, decide whether the conduct is substantiated, and only then consider whether dismissal is warranted. Collapsing or reordering those steps can render an otherwise defensible dismissal unfair - a risk the Commission indicated applies with particular force to larger, well-resourced employers.
