Resources: Blog

FWC finds employee’s persistent breaches justified dismissal


On repeat

The matter involved a history or unacceptable conduct by an employee that resulted in the termination of his employment.

We recently represented an employer in an unfair dismissal matter before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that was decided in favour of our client (Hanson v Rhino Rack T/A Rhino Rack Perth [2019] FWC 1235). The matter involved a history of unacceptable conduct by an employee that resulted in the termination of his employment.

Ultimately, Deputy President Binet of the FWC held that the employee’s dismissal was not unfair.


The employee had been employed since April 2017 in the position of Storeperson in the employer’s warehouse. His contract of employment required him to comply with the policies and procedures of his employer.

The employer maintained three policies/procedures that were relevant to the employee’s dismissal:

  • A No Smoking policy – employees were not permitted to smoke on the employer’s premises other than in a designated smoking area.
  • A ban on eating and drinking in the warehouse – employees were not permitted to eat or drink anything other than water in the warehouse.
  • The safety chain procedure – employees were required to hang a safety chain across the large roller door entry to the warehouse at all times except when authorised persons or vehicles were entering or exiting.

From early 2018, the employee’s manager observed him repeatedly breaching the above policies and procedures. The employee was verbally cautioned and warned about his conduct on numerous occasions and also received a written warning about his breaches in May 2018.

Despite these warnings, the employee continued to breach the employer’s policies and procedures. In August 2018, a new employee to the warehouse informed the manager that the employee had told him not hang the safety chain across the doorway.

This prompted the commencement of a disciplinary process in which it was put to the employee that he was intentionally and persistently breaching the employer’s policies and procedures.

The employee responded to the allegations by stating that “…for the most part I can’t say I’m innocent.” He went on to claim that he was not intentionally breaching the employer’s policies and procedures and he didn’t understand why the employer considered his conduct to be so serious.

On the basis of the employee’s conduct and his failure to take responsibility for his actions, the employer formed the view that his employment was no longer sustainable and the employee’s employment was terminated.

The employee then commenced unfair dismissal proceedings in FWC.


The main issue for determination by the Deputy President was whether the employee’s repeated breaches of the employer’s policies, procedures and directions amounted to a valid reason for dismissal.

In summary, the employee’s position was that he had not breached the employer’s policies and procedures but if he had it was either not intentional or the policies/procedures were not that important and he was only required to “try” to follow them. The employee considered his manager’s complaints about his repeated failures to follow the policies and procedures to be petty.

The employer’s evidence before the FWC successfully established that the employee was aware of (or should have been aware of) each of the relevant policies/procedures. The Deputy President found that those policies and procedures, and the directions to follow them, were reasonable and lawful and the employee had repeatedly breached those policies, procedures and directions, notwithstanding that he had been informally and formally warned not to do so.

The Deputy President stated,

"While Mr Hanson’s conduct may not in isolation have justified his dismissal … I am satisfied that Mr Hanson’s conduct involved, in aggregate, a consistent pattern of behaviour that demonstrated a repeated disregard for and refusal to comply with Rhino Rack’s lawful and reasonable policies procedures and directions. I am satisfied in those circumstances Mr Hanson’s conduct constituted a valid reason for his dismissal."

The Deputy President also examined the disciplinary process followed by the employer and found that it was procedurally fair. Specifically, the Deputy President found that,

  • the employee was notified of the reasons for his dismissal in the letters issued to him during the disciplinary process;
  • the employee was provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him; and
  • the employee was not unreasonably refused a support person during the disciplinary process.

Accordingly, the Deputy President dismissed the employee’s application on the basis that the dismissal “was proportional to the persistent nature of his conduct and was not in all the circumstances harsh, unjust or unreasonable.”

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.

Similar articles

FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.


Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.


Employer and director ordered to pay penalties for failure to comply with compliance notice

Compliance is a must

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) regularly engages in enforcement action for contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). Such enforcement action includes issuing infringement and compliance notices, entering into enforceable undertakings or commencing litigation against companies and others involved in contraventions.


Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.


Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.