‘Shoot first, ask questions later’: Disciplinary approach slammed by the FWC

In his termination letter, a worker was presented with a list of allegations of misconduct, which were quashed by Fair Work Commission deputy president Ian Masson in his decision, finding the employer’s evidence unsustained.

A warehouse and manufacturing assistant who was issued three warning letters was dismissed five days after the final letter on the grounds of misconduct, after working for The Trustee For Safety Xpress Unit Trust for over two years.

Three days after his termination, the worker submitted an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission, telling the court that he suffered financially following the dismissal, struggling to pay rent and bills as a single parent.

In his decision on 17 April, deputy president Ian Masson found that the worker acted aggressively and inappropriately towards the people and culture manager when he issued a handwritten response to the second written warning.

This misconduct weighed in favour of the dismissal being valid; however, he found that the lack of direct evidence from the manager “prevents me from drawing a conclusion that the conduct was so egregious as to establish a valid reason for the applicant’s dismissal”, the commissioner said.

Masson said that the other allegations made by his employer in the letter of termination either did not constitute misconduct or were based on evidence that was not sustained.

In its final termination letter, issued to the worker in late 2025, the reasons included the video recording of meetings, the alleged failure to complete safety forms, the falsification of safety records, demanding access to CCTV footage, recording of interactions with other staff, and sending argumentative emails in response to warning letters.

The first written warning was due to the worker’s refusal to hang a whiteboard on the wall of the purchasing area. In his rebuttal, the worker submitted that his plastering experience led him to believe the provided anchor plugs were insufficient for the job. He added that he requested stronger anchor plugs; his request was rejected, leading him to decline to carry out the job for safety.

“I am not satisfied that the alleged conduct constitutes misconduct or establishes a valid reason for the applicant’s dismissal,” Masson said.

In his decision, Masson determined that the final written warning was actually a show-cause letter; however, this was not made clear to the worker, and he was thus punished for not responding to the warning.

“[His employer] appeared to adopt an approach of ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ in respect of its warning letters. That is, they issued warnings to the applicant and then invited him to respond,” Masson said.

“[His employer] would be well advised to review its approach to the management of disciplinary matters in light of these observations.”

The commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair, accepted the worker’s unfair dismissal application, and ordered his employer to pay him compensation of $10,849.61 for 11 weeks’ worth of lost wages, minus deductions.

Carlos Tse

Carlos Tse is a graduate journalist writing for Accountants Daily, HR Leader, Lawyers Weekly.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.