Worker who claimed supervisor had vendetta against him loses unfair dismissal claim

The Fair Work Commission has upheld the dismissal of an employee who breached safety procedures twice.

Jeffray Fox commenced employment for Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd on 12 December 2023 as a maintainer fitter in the company’s non-process infrastructure (NPI) division.

Fox reported to Joseph Power, who was the NPI supervisor; Tony Halpin was the division’s manager, while Paul Robinson was its general manager.

An oil spill

On 11 January 2025, the commission found that Fox failed to perform a risk assessment before commencing work on an oil rack.

Fox was found to have failed to isolate the valve while working on the waste oil system, which led to an oil spill. The commissioner accepted, based on photo evidence provided by Roy Hill, that “there was a large volume of oil spilled, and that this created a hazard”.

The incident was promptly reported to the NPI mech coordinator, prompting an investigation to commence the following day.

In the incident report dated 12 January 2025, Fox was reported to have attempted to stop the flow of oil by closing the manual valve from the workshop; however, the pneumatic valves that remained open caused a continued gravity feed to the open pipework, causing the oil to spill in the bunded area until they were eventually closed.

Stood down on pay

On 14 January 2025, Fox and Power met in person while Ms Cooper, human resources specialist for Roy Hill, dialled in for the meeting. During the meeting, Fox was advised that he was being stood down on pay, pending an investigation. Fox admitted to his superiors that he had “not decided” to undertake safety procedures or isolation measures prior to undertaking the task that led to the oil spill.

On 20 January 2025, Fox was directed to attend a show cause meeting with Halpin and Cooper. During this meeting, a “first and final written warning” was issued to Fox, and he was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP).

In this written warning, it stated that the PIP: “will provide [him] with the opportunity to demonstrate alignment to these as well as to [Roy Hill’s] code of conduct and company values”.

The letter stated that upon failure to address the concerns outlined in the PIP or if further breaches occur, Fox “may be subject to further disciplinary action up to and including the termination of your employment”; the warning added that bonus payments were to incur a “negative impact” for 12 months from the issue of the warning.

On 17 February 2025, Fox met with Power and the acting NPI superintendent to discuss the PIP, which stated that: “All training related to risk assessments and isolation procedures is to be refreshed at the earliest available opportunity”.

The PIP also detailed that Fox was to complete all relevant risk assessments and to “follow all requirements and processes to safely isolate and manage damaging energies or substances on all plant and equipment”.

Performance meetings

Fox met with Power and Cooper for a performance review on 10 March 2025, 17 March 2025, and 7 April 2025 to discuss his performance and the PIP. Following each meeting, Fox signed a performance plan review and did not contest the accuracy of the PIP notes.

During the first meeting, Fox stated that he was “happy with the support provided”, and during the final meeting, the commission found that Fox had: “correctly identified and controlled all hazards, with the JHA, Material Safety Data Sheet, and Work Instruction completed to a very good standard”.

Isolation debacle

On 13 April 2025, Fox was tasked to replace a pump for a sprinkler system. When Power went in to check on Fox, he found that Fox had not yet started replacing the pump, but had started the job.

Power gave evidence that when he asked Fox whether he was aware that he failed to perform an isolation procedure, Fox was evasive.

The commission found that although Fox had performed the required electrical isolations, he had not isolated two mechanical valves that were involved in controlling the flow of water through the pump.

Following the discovery that the isolation was incorrect, Power told Fox to stop working, remove his isolation locks and return to the NPI office – he was stood down on pay again while a new investigation commenced.

In further findings, the commission found that Fox did not intend to isolate the mechanical valves, as he did not think that it was necessary.

Claims of a personal vendetta

Fox submitted that the reason why the isolation incident “attracted so much attention” was because Power wanted to “get rid of him” and that he held a personal vendetta against him; however, Fox did not put this to Power during cross-examination.

The commission found that Fox seemed to propose this personal vendetta as he was aggrieved with Power being involved in the reporting of both incidents.

Commissioner Pearl Lim said: “I do not find that there was credible evidence establishing that Mr Power had a vendetta against Mr Fox.”

Fox also submitted that Roy Hill used the safety protocols as a reason to terminate him, as it was the easiest method to get rid of him. Further, he claimed that he was scrutinised because he had not “silently put up with sub-standard safety practices”.

The commission found: “Mr Fox also confusingly submits that he has worked in oil and gas and has maintained safety standards higher than those in mining, but that he cannot be expected to maintain oil and gas safety standards wherever he works.”

The commission also found that his PIP required him to “complete appropriate risk assessments “and to focus on them like “never before”. Based on Fox’s continued failure to complete appropriate risk assessments after his PIP, the commission found that his dismissal was valid.

Upon consideration of the evidence and submissions, the commission found that Fox’s dismissal was not unfair and thus upheld his termination and his application was dismissed.

The case citation: Mr Jeffray Fox v Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd (U2025/8862).