He used his employer's insurance for the job and didn't disclose it to WorkCover
A plumber on workers' compensation did a side job using his employer's insurance without permission, and lost his unfair dismissal claim.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on February 17, 2026 that Project Air Melbourne acted lawfully when it summarily dismissed Glenn Hughes after discovering he had performed unauthorised plumbing work whilst receiving WorkCover benefits and operating under medical capacity restrictions.
Hughes had worked for the Melbourne-based small business for 3.4 years when he suffered a workplace injury toward the end of 2024. But on February 10, 2025, whilst still on restricted duties, he completed external plumbing work for a friend at a property in Berwick, and signed the VBA Compliance Certificate as a licenced practitioner employed by Project Air, relying on the company's public liability insurance.
He never asked for permission. And when completing his WorkCover certificates of incapacity from January to July 2025, Hughes failed to tick the disclosure box indicating he had engaged in work outside his employment. His explanation at the hearing: his wife helped complete the forms, and he was told "they just needed to be signed off and sent—so that's what he arranged to do."
The employer's concerns initially were circumstantial. Hughes had been asking about air-conditioning unit prices, raising suspicions he might be doing work on the side. When they confronted him in June 2025, he denied it. But in late July 2025, Project Air discovered the signed compliance certificate from the Berwick job. That's when the company moved to terminate his employment.
Hughes argued he'd already resigned on July 24, 2025, three weeks before his dismissal on August 6, 2025. He claimed he'd sent an email to management giving notice, but the employer said they never received any resignation and Hughes never mentioned it during the termination meeting.
Commissioner Connolly examined whether Project Air, as a small business employer, had reasonable grounds to believe Hughes engaged in serious misconduct justifying immediate dismissal under the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
The Commission found the employer's concerns were justified. Hughes admitted in the hearing he "did not seek permission to perform this work" and "overlooked the disclosure box" on his WorkCover forms. Whilst he argued he'd done similar external work before without issue, the employer maintained that staff had "never been permitted to undertake work that required the issuance of a VBA compliance certificate and reliance on its public liability insurance."
The termination letter stated Hughes's actions amounted to "a fundamental breach of trust, contractual obligation, and health and safety responsibilities."
Hughes also contended that because he never signed a formal employment contract, he owed no obligations to his employer. The Commission rejected this argument, finding that "as an experienced employee," Hughes would have understood he owed "general and implied obligations of trust and honesty to his employer, whether he had signed an employment contract or not."
Importantly, the Commission noted it didn't need to determine whether Hughes intended to deceive. The question was whether the employer held a reasonable belief that he'd engaged in serious misconduct, and whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds following a proper investigation.
Commissioner Connolly was satisfied on both counts, finding that Hughes's conduct—performing unauthorised work whilst on capacity restrictions, using the company's insurance without consent, and failing to disclose the work to WorkCover—constituted serious misconduct that justified summary dismissal.
The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The ruling confirms that employers can lawfully terminate employees who moonlight whilst on workers' compensation, provided they follow proper process and hold reasonable grounds for their belief.
Those managing workers' compensation cases should note the importance of clear policies around external work, proper investigation when suspicions arise, and thorough documentation throughout the process, particularly when dealing with employees on medical restrictions or receiving compensation benefits.
