New employees to the workforce require appropriate supervision while they build new skills and to ensure that they work in a safe manner. The obligation to ensure the safety of new workers also extends to ensuring their psychosocial safety, including the psychosocial risks of bullying.
An employee’s approach to supervising an apprentice has drawn rebuke by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in Mcrea v Jetstar Airways Pty Limited [2026] FWC 1122 after it was found that the employee was not unfairly dismissed for breaching the employer’s “Cardinal Rules” in relation to safety.
The employee was employed as an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer for the employer. The employer conducted an investigation after an apprentice made a complaint about the employee’s conduct toward him. The employer conducted an investigation and found the allegations to be substantiated and subsequently commenced a disciplinary process against the employee.
The employee was summarily dismissed as a result of his conduct arising from the substantiated allegations. This included:
1) The employee pressing an emergency stop button on an elevated work platform (EWP) that two apprentices were using, resulting in the apprentices being left 5-6 metres above ground, unable to descend and were required to call for assistance.
The employer had in place “Cardinal Rules” which provided that employees were to refrain from “knowingly or recklessly participating in horseplay, skylarking or practical jokes, in a manner which causes or has the potential to cause physical or mental harm to anyone, or damage to property.”
2) The employee yelling and making comments to the apprentice including:
a. Commenting “You are all p*ssies now, it’s ridiculous, back when I was an apprentice, we used to cop all sorts of abuse” while the apprentice was writing in his journal.
b. Asking the apprentice “Were you hit much as a kid?”.
c. Yelling at the apprentice to “take it to the carpark, be a man” to suggest a fight.
3) The employee waving his hands in the apprentice’s face while they were driving in a utility vehicle together.
The employee was unsuccessful in appealing his dismissal through the employer’s internal appeal procedure available under the enterprise agreement and made an unfair dismissal application to the FWC.
In relation to the allegations against the employee:
1) The employer submitted that there was no operational or safety reason for the employee to press the emergency stop button and resulted in the two apprentices being stuck and required them to call for assistance to get down from the EWP. The employer submitted that the employee knew or should have known that his actions were a potential safety risk, but he had laughed at the situation.
The employee claimed that he pressed the emergency stop on the EWP for operational reasons and had forgotten to reset it before walking away. The employee claimed that the hangar was noisy and he turned off the EWP to speak to the apprentice as he had observed him not to be working and had intended to return. The employee also claimed that the apprentice had been coerced into making a complaint against him.
2) The employee claimed that his comments had been misconstrued or were taken out of context. In particular the employee claimed that he was recounting an anecdote of when he was an apprentice, suggesting that working environments were “different” and tougher in the past.
3) The employer found that the employee and the apprentice had a disagreement, with the employee calling the apprentice “lazy” to which the apprentice responded he would make a complaint to HR. The employee waved his hands in the face of the apprentice, yelling at him and accused the apprentice for being weak for taking the matter to HR.
The FWC preferred the evidence of the employer and in particular, that of the apprentice in relation to each of the allegations and found that the employee engaged in the conduct.
The FWC found that the employee held the view that as a more senior employee he had a “prerogative and right to ride” the apprentice hard and was unable to appreciate that the apprentice did not welcome or enjoy their interactions.
The FWC was satisfied that the employee’s conduct in relation the EWP was a valid reason for dismissal and found that the employee recklessly engaged in “horseplay, skylarking or practical jokes” in breach of the Cardinal Rules.
The FWC commented at [42]:
The Applicant’s conduct in relation to the EWP and his verbal altercation with Mr Garrett in February 2025 suggests a failure to appreciate that he is in an ever-decreasing minority that still thinks apprentice hazing is funny and something that should just be accepted. The Applicant seemingly has no conception that for certain individuals it can be extremely damaging.
However the FWC did not consider the employee’s other conduct towards the apprentice was sufficient to be a valid reason dismiss him, but warranted disciplinary action sanctioning the employee against such conduct.
With no procedural deficiencies in the dismissal process, the FWC determined that the termination of the employee’s employment was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The FWC considered that the employee’s actions in a safety critical work environment had the potential to cause serious harm to the apprentices.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal application was dismissed.
The apprentice in this matter gave evidence that he felt belittled by the employee and that he was fearful to voice his concerns or to speak up against the employee.
It has long been recognised that hazing, practical jokes is a form of workplace bullying and creates psychosocial risks particularly for apprentices, who are younger workers and new to the workforce. Employers have work health and safety responsibilities to ensure the health and safety of all employees, including their psychosocial health. Employees can no longer rely on “back in my day” mentality to excuse or justify behaviour that is harmful to physical and mental health.
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.
