FWC examines workplace dynamics in unfair dismissal claim
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker claimed his dismissal in August 2024 was unjust. He argued that after sustaining a workplace injury, his employer inappropriately pushed him to perform work he wasn't fit to do.
The worker stated that his employer forced him to complete multiple "odd jobs" daily that involved manual labour despite his injury. He also claimed the employer deliberately denied payment for his medical expenses related to the workplace injury.
The case centered on multiple workplace incidents from June 2023 to August 2024, involving safety protocols, injury management, and disputes over the chain of command at a Melbourne-based business.
The worker started as a stone mason in June 2023. By February 2024, he received a formal warning about punctuality. During the FWC proceedings, he acknowledged having transport difficulties that sometimes resulted in two to three hour waits for transportation to work.
A workplace incident occurred on 24 May 2024, captured on CCTV footage. The footage showed the worker approaching a trolley with stacked stone slabs without engaging the wheel brakes. When using a jib crane to lift a slab, the shifting weight sent the trolley spinning into him, causing injury.
The production manager's subsequent investigation identified multiple safety breaches. When questioned during the FWC proceedings about working under suspended loads, the worker stated: "[The employer] is not a government agency that I must follow."
The employment relationship showed persistent issues with the chain of command. Despite being instructed to report to his immediate supervisors, the worker regularly bypassed them to communicate directly with the managing director.
When questioned about workplace policies during the FWC proceedings, the worker confirmed his position that he "does not need to follow every workplace policy." Text messages presented as evidence showed increasingly confrontational communications with management.
The situation escalated in August 2024 when the worker took leave without approval and sent messages to the production manager stating: "Respect is earned, you cannot get it by begging."
The FWC examined the dismissal under section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted procedural shortcomings in how the employer handled the termination but found they were outweighed by serious safety violations.
The Commission's decision stated: "By not checking that the trolley wheel brakes were engaged and lifting a 100kg slab of stone above head height, [the worker] took unacceptable risks with not just his safety, but the safety of his co-workers who had rushed to help him."
The ruling emphasised: "For someone of his experience to say that it is acceptable to work near or under a suspended load regularly and to shirk responsibility for working safely onto his co-workers is deeply problematic."
The Commission concluded: "Having considered the criteria in s 387, I find that [the worker's] dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable." The worker's application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.
