FIFO Electrician Not Unfairly Dismissed for Breaching Working at Height Requirements

An electrician who filed for unfair dismissal for breaching his site’s working at height requirements has been found to not have been harshly, unjustly or unreasonably terminated by the Fair Work Commission. 

The Incident

A workgroup of two electricians was directed to perform maintenance work on a booster pump of a Mobile Mining Unit (‘MMU’) that was on parked on an incline. To freely access the pump, it required the removal of an aerial antenna from the MMU. To access and to remove the aerial, one of the electricians has deliberately climbed outside of the handrails and for a period of between five to ten minutes, exposed himself to a 6.1 metre drop. Whilst the electrician lied to his employer during the investigation that he had compiled a Take 5 for the task, no working at heights permit was obtained, no working at heights equipment utilised or scaffolding requested to be erected. 

Disappointingly, another site contractor witnessed the unsafe act and did not stop the job. Instead, they have photographed the electrician working on top of the MMU and provided the evidence to their employer, who in turn, provided it to the client. The client has subsequently initiated an investigation. 

The Contentions

The electrician contended that ‘dimissal is not the automatic or inevitable response to a safety breach’. He further outlined his mitigating factors of:

➡️It was a single incident that was not deliberate or reckless;

➡️The conduct was not planned in advance;

➡️The other electrician did not stop the job;

➡️That no one was injured with no damage to property; 

➡️It was a momentary lapse from an otherwise safety conscious employee; and

➡️That he was given no opportunity to prepare for a disciplinary meeting and had no explanation of his rights. Further, that he was under pressure to respond, had no understanding that his employment may be at risk, was in a state of shock and confusion and felt intimidated and overwhelmed.

The employer outlined that the conduct was serious misconduct as he ‘deliberately engaged in a wilful and reckless breach of its Golden (Safety) Rules’, including his signed acknowledgements of requirements under his employment contract, the ‘WHS Policy’ and the ‘Work at Height Procedure’.

Speed of the Investigation and Termination

The electrician was terminated the day after the incident. Commissioner Thornton outlined that ‘the investigation, whilst swift, concerned specific, admitted conduct’. Further, that ‘there is no basis to conclude that because the investigation was completed within a day that an inference should be drawn that there was either no genuine consideration of the electrician’s statement before the decision was made or that the decision was made before the investigation occurred. The evidence of the steps taken by the employer to investigate the matter show that the investigation was thorough and efficient’.

Mr Jamie Hollinshead v Murray Zircon Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1979

Case note: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FWC/2026/1979.html?context=1;query=%22work%20health%20and%20safety%22%20%20%20%20%20;mask_path=