Even traumatic injury has limits when dishonesty enters the picture
An electricity worker suffered serious burns in an arc flash explosion while working overtime. Eighteen days later, his employer fired him for the safety breach that caused his injuries.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on January 20, 2026 that the termination was not unfair. The decision draws a hard line on where accountability trumps sympathy, even when the facts tug at compassion.
Michael Tapp had worked for Ausgrid, a New South Wales electricity distributor, for many years as an Operating Depot Supervisor without incident. On July 10, 2025, he was repairing a fault at a substation kiosk in Hurstville when an electrical arc flash erupted at 6:46pm. The explosion threw him backwards. He suffered serious burns to his face, arms, and legs.
The problem was plain: Tapp was not wearing the required face shield when performing live low voltage testing work. Video footage confirmed it. He wore a hard hat without the shield attached, despite the requirement being in place since February 2025. Tapp admitted in cross-examination he knew the rule.
Ausgrid launched an investigation. What began as one safety breach grew into three.
The company discovered Tapp had not completed a required Hazard Assessment Conversation before starting work that evening. These assessments help workers identify the correct protective equipment for each job. Tapp acknowledged they were important. He just hadn't done one.
Then came the most damaging finding. Before leaving for hospital treatment, Tapp signed an old HAC form that had been completed years earlier by another worker for a different job. He wrote 6:15am as the completion time—when his shift started, not when he signed it. The colleague who helped him confirmed the old form was meant to make it look like Tapp had completed a proper assessment when he had not.
Tapp's legal team argued the circumstances were exceptional. He had just survived a traumatic explosion. Medical evidence suggested the incident affected his behavior afterward. Fifteen colleagues provided statements supporting him. His record was clean across many years of service.
The Electrical Trades Union raised another point: employees had complained for months about visibility problems with the face shields, particularly in bad weather. Ausgrid was trialing alternatives. But Tapp conceded those concerns did not explain why he failed to wear the shield that night. He called it human error.
Commissioner Crawford weighed each factor under section 387 of the Fair Work Act. The decision acknowledged Tapp's long service, the trauma he endured, his injuries while working overtime, and the strong colleague support all pointed toward harshness.
The cumulative misconduct outweighed it all. The decision stated: "If Mr Tapp's only misconduct had been failing to wear the face shield at the end of a long shift, I would have had little hesitation in finding dismissal to be harsh in all the circumstances."
But there were three breaches, not one. Failing to wear protective equipment. Failing to complete the safety assessment. Then falsifying the record to cover it up. That last piece tipped the scales. The Commissioner also noted Tapp held a senior supervisory position, making the violations more significant.
The ruling exposes a common tension in dismissal decisions that many HR teams struggle to navigate. Mitigating factors like long service, trauma, and colleague support carry genuine weight in unfair dismissal cases. But they operate within boundaries, and those boundaries firm up quickly when misconduct accumulates and dishonesty enters the picture.
For Ausgrid, the decision validated a difficult call. The company dismissed an injured worker with a clean record and strong internal support. The circumstances looked harsh. But the Commission found the cumulative breaches, particularly the falsified safety record, justified the outcome despite the sympathetic backdrop.
The takeaway for HR teams is clear: assess misconduct cumulatively, not in isolation. A single safety lapse might warrant leniency, especially under traumatic circumstances. Multiple breaches combined with dishonesty shifts the calculus entirely, even when other factors point toward compassion. In safety-critical environments where senior employees set standards, that line matters more.
