Employee dismissed for out of hours conduct

Clocked-off but carrying on

September 26, 2016

Thankfully, most employers will never have to concern themselves with disciplining employees for their out of hours conduct, but on occasion an employee’s conduct after business hours and away from work can be so damaging or dangerous that an employer will have little option but to get involved.

In a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (K v Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Limited T/A Mount Thorley Operations/Warkworth Mining [2016] FWC 6018 (Mount Thorley decision)), Commissioner Saunders said,

“It is only in exceptional circumstances that an employer has a right to extend any supervision over the private activities of employees.”

In the Mount Thorley decision, the employer became aware of the out of hours conduct of a group of employees who, whilst driving home from work, manoeuvred their cars on a public highway in such a manner so as to prevent one of their colleagues from being able to turn off the highway in the direction of his home. The decision concerned one particular employee whose employment was terminated as a result of his involvement in the dangerous driving incident and who subsequently claimed that he was unfairly dismissed.

In reaching a finding as to whether the employee’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable Commissioner Saunders considered whether the employee’s out of hours conduct had a sufficiently strong connection to the employment relationship such that it could form a valid reason for the employee’s dismissal.

In deciding if a sufficient connection to the employment relationship exists, a court will consider:

whether the conduct was capable of causing damage to the relationship between the employer and employee;
whether the conduct was capable of damaging the employer’s interests; and
whether the conduct was incompatible with the employee’s duties as an employee.

In considering the above, Commissioner Saunders found that the employee’s conduct in driving in a dangerous manner so as to “box in” a colleague on a public highway did have a sufficient connection to the employment relationship and therefore, the employer was within its rights to rely on that out of hours conduct as a reason for dismissing the employee.

In particular, Commissioner Saunders said that had an injury occurred as result of the Applicant’s conduct, that injury would have amounted to a “journey claim” under workers compensation legislation because the employees were on their way home from work at the time. Accordingly, the employer would have been liable for such a journey claim and therefore, the Applicant’s conduct posed a risk to the employer’s interests.

Furthermore, Commission Saunders said that because the incident occurred on a public road in reasonable proximity to the employer’s mine site and there was a real risk of injury to the employees or other members of the public, it follows that the incident had the potential to adversely affect the employer’s reputation.

This case is a good example of why employers should treat inappropriate out of hours conduct seriously. Not everything that happens in an employee’s private life is an employer’s concern, but actions and circumstances with a reasonable nexus to the workplace and / or involving work colleagues should be treated seriously by the employer every time.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Commission finds failure to consult meant dismissal was not a genuine redundancy

When you assume

In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission has emphasised that an employer’s obligations to consult during the redundancy process under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is not a mere procedural formality, but a mandatory requirement for genuine redundancy.

March 9, 2026

Blogs

FWC orders reinstatement despite valid reason for dismissal

It was a one-off

It is important that employers carefully consider and weigh any mitigating factors when undertaking disciplinary processes. A fair and balanced approach ensures that behavioural risks in the workplace are managed effectively without losing sight of the broader context in which the behaviour occurred.

February 18, 2026

Blogs

Managing ill and injured workers

In her usual entertaining and informative style, our Managing Director and Principal, Athena Koelmeyer, will guide employers through the tangled web of legislative obligations they face when dealing with an ill or injured employee.

April 29, 2025

Fair Work Commission warns against offboarding casual employees without proper notification

From active to inactive

Employers should be mindful that the nature of casual employment does not necessarily mean that a casual employee can be terminated without notice that the employment relationship has ended.

March 24, 2026

Blogs

Employer’s inadequate training results in vicarious liability finding

Zero stars

A recent decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has sent a clear message that employers must do more than “set and forget” training to be able to secure a defence against vicarious liability for employees’ unlawful conduct.

March 24, 2026

Blogs