Resources: Blogs

Patience, you must have


FWC upholds safety-related dismissal of employee given multiple chances

The Fair Work Commission’s recent decision in Hafsteins v Correct Installs Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 2729 has showcased a “patient” employer’s handling of an employee’s numerous workplace health and safety breaches.

The Fair Work Commission’s (FWC’s) recent decision in Hafsteins v Correct Installs Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 2729 has showcased a “patient” employer’s handling of an employee’s numerous workplace health and safety breaches.  

The employee was employed at a racking and storage system installation business for two and a half years, initially as a labourer before being promoted to the position of Second in Charge.

Work health and safety and conduct concerns were initially raised with the employee in early June 2019 when the employer became aware of a number of breaches, including that the employee had:

  • caused damage to various equipment and vehicles at the employer’s warehouse and on worksites;
  • failed to complete safety documentation including a log book to record truck usage and a statement acknowledging workplace safety protocols;
  • failed to conduct plant checks in accordance with the employer’s policy;
  • driven an electric scissor lift out of the warehouse while the cord was still plugged in, and then failed to notify anyone of the incident and left the damaged cord available for use; and
  • failed to properly hitch a trailer to a vehicle while driving it on a public road.  

The employee accepted these allegations and was given a warning. He was also reminded to listen to simple instructions such as doing a “walk around” a trailer before driving a vehicle towing it, and told to review the notes from that meeting every morning to think about how he could improve his safety performance.

By the end of June 2019, the employer commenced another disciplinary process with the employee which resulted in another warning being issued in relation to various instances of misconduct. These included:

  • being absent without authorisation or notice to the employer;
  • attending for work thirty minutes later than his rostered start time;
  • speaking negatively of his work colleagues to customers; and
  • causing offence to a customer’s employee which resulted in the customer refusing to work with him.

The employee did not dispute these matters.

In early August 2019, the employer commenced another disciplinary process which resulted in a final warning being issued to the employee in relation to further instances of misconduct and work health and safety breaches. This time, the incidents included:

  • attending for work late and not commencing work until an hour after his rostered start time;
  • failing to maintain proper communication with other employees whilst working in a scissor lift and failing to show due care and attention to company and client equipment by slamming things down; and
  • acting disrespectfully towards the HR Manager by hanging up on them before the discussion was concluded.

At this point, the employee was advised that further misconduct might result in the termination of his employment and that his performance would be reviewed again in September 2019.

In September 2019, the employer became aware that, on a job in July 2019, the employee had allowed a power lead to be used across a high traffic forklift area which resulted in the customer having to block off the area.

When this matter was raised with the employee, he advised the employer that the lead was rolled up. The employee later conceded that this was not the case and said that he was “on the defensive” because the test and tag period for his tools had expired and his tools were out of date.

The employee was subsequently dismissed as a result of this incident and the previous warnings he had received in relation to following reasonable management instructions, lateness, inappropriate behaviour and breaching safety procedures.

In the unfair dismissal proceedings before the FWC, the employee argued that there was no valid reason for his dismissal. He argued that he was dismissed because of the incident in July 2019 and that this was unfair because other workers also regularly had power leads running across walkways, workers had been notified of the work being completed in that area, and they had been advised to use an alternate doorway.

After considering the evidence, the FWC found that the employer had a valid reason to dismiss the employee. It found that the employer had appropriate workplace health and safety procedures in place and that the employee failed to follow them on numerous occasions, despite being repeatedly warned about his attitude towards workplace health and safety.

The FWC found that the employee was sufficiently trained in the procedures and, in any event, “some of the [employee]’s safety breaches were so fundamental that he should not have required training to prevent them. The conduct of the [employee] in running a power cord across a doorway through which forklifts could travel, is a case in point” [at 52].

The FWC preferred the evidence of the employer and considered that “the [employee] had a tendency to rationalise his behaviour by attempting to establish failures in the [employer]’s training or systems, when the [employee] was responsible for the many incidents about which he was warned” [at 54].

The FWC found that the employer had every reason to dismiss the employee in June 2019, and it displayed great patience with the employee’s numerous and serious safety breaches and persisted with attempting to rectify his attitude. It went to great lengths to afford the employee procedural fairness by setting out the allegations about his conduct and giving him every opportunity to respond.

The FWC therefore dismissed the employee’s application.

Lessons for employers

This decision is a good example of how employers, particularly managers, should approach issues of misconduct in the workplace. Rather than acting with haste to dismiss an employee when an issue arises, employers should, at least, provide an employee with an opportunity to respond to concerns about their conduct in the workplace prior to engaging in disciplinary action. In this matter, the employee was provided with multiple opportunities and still failed to improve to the standard required.

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

"You need to calm down" - Managing workplace behaviour

In this webinar, we tackle the challenges faced by employers when it comes to managing workplace behaviour, and discuss a range of interesting issues which can occur in both the traditional and hybrid workplace.


Stop-bullying orders issued against non-workers

Misery loves company

Under the anti-bullying jurisdiction of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission has the broad power to make an order (other than monetary payment) that it considers appropriate to prevent a worker from being bullied at work.


Heat of the moment resignation and constructive dismissal

Go your own way

For an employee to bring a valid unfair dismissal claim or a general protections claim involving dismissal, it should be obvious that they must have been dismissed by their employer.


Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.


Employers delay sinks bid for injunctive relief

Speak now

When seeking to enforce a restraint, it is important that employers seek to enforce the restraint in a timely manner to prevent future or an ongoing breach. Any delay will be considered by the courts when assessing whether it is reasonable to enforce the restraint.


Two-year post-employment restraint on hairdresser found to be unreasonable

Splitting hairs

When it comes to drafting post-employment restraints in employment contracts, it is important for employers to consider the purpose of the restraint and whether or not the restraint reasonably serves that purpose.


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.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.