Safety compliance vs emergency response: Worker challenges dismissal over alleged safety violations

FWC examines when workplace rules can be overridden in urgent situations

Safety compliance vs emergency response: Worker challenges dismissal over alleged safety violations

The Fair Work Commission recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker maintained that his emergency response duties justified exceeding speed limits. The case arose from an incident at a mine site where he drove at nearly double the permitted speed.

The worker argued that without clear emergency response driving policies, he was forced to rely on his judgment in urgent situations. He maintained that the possibility of fire reignition warranted continued speeding even after the immediate threat was contained.

The case examined whether speeding on a mine site could be justified by emergency circumstances, and what constituted appropriate conduct in urgent situations.

Workplace safety during emergency response

A medical and rescue services supervisor at the Saraji mine site responded to a fire emergency on April 24, 2024. The supervisor, who managed four emergency response officers and one paramedic emergency officer, drove at 113 kilometres per hour in a 60-kilometre zone.

When questioned during the hearing, the supervisor acknowledged that after being informed there was no threat to life and the fire was extinguished, he reduced his speed only to 90 kilometres per hour. He cited concerns about potential fire reignition as justification.

The BMA BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA) superintendent, who oversaw site operations, testified unequivocally about speed limits: "there was no grey area in breaching speed limits even in circumstances of emergencies."

Safety protocols and compliance breach

The Commission heard evidence about multiple safety concerns. The supervisor operated the vehicle with one hand while using a handheld radio, and his passenger, a paramedic emergency officer, was getting dressed during the journey. He admitted uncertainty about whether she had secured her seatbelt.

The employer, MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue Pty Ltd, presented evidence of a recent fatality at the site involving a speeding vehicle.

The Commission noted in its decision: "When all of the circumstances of my findings are considered, where I am satisfied that [the worker] had a passenger in the vehicle who was getting dressed at the time, whom he was unaware as to whether she was wearing a seat belt, where he had one hand on a handheld radio and one on the steering wheel, was untrained for driving in emergency conditions, on a site for which I find that he was unclear on the conditions that evening, and despite being told there was no threat to life and no fire and he continued to drive above the speed limit, I consider this was conduct that was unacceptable for someone in his position."

Evidence revealed the supervisor's last emergency vehicle operation training was approximately 20 years ago, and he had received counselling for breaching standard operating procedures just one month before the speeding incident.

Employment outcome and decision

After BMA withdrew the supervisor's site access, MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue Pty Ltd attempted to find alternative employment for him.

The Commission found: "I am satisfied that at that meeting, [the employer] offered [the worker] another role as a Security Guard for a different client, which was also put in writing."

The supervisor had worked for the company for 20 months - seven months as a casual worker and 13 months as a permanent employee.

This employment history and a recent disciplinary record were considered in the Commission's deliberations.

The Commission ultimately determined: "I am satisfied that the dismissal of [the worker] was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable for all the reasons set out."

The Commission also noted that even if the dismissal had been found unfair, reinstatement would have been inappropriate: "given [the employer's] attempts to have [the worker's] site access reinstated, and the serious nature of [the worker's] actions giving rise to a serious loss in confidence in him to perform his role, I would have considered reinstatement inappropriate in all the circumstances."