Cleaner’s soggy wake-up wins him $10k in FWC ruling

Despite forgetting the drunken events of the night before, a residential village cleaner’s sobering wake-up in wet board shorts wins him $9,543 in compensation after his employer fired him on allegations of skinny dipping during a Christmas pool party.

After a Christmas celebration at a mining accommodation village in Central Queensland, a cleaner working for the accommodation provider was summarily dismissed after his employer alleged that he had jumped into the pool in full monty during the party, stayed in the pool area past the village’s curfew, and drank alcohol during the event.

The cleaner’s employer and operator of the village, Sirrom Co (Sirrom), submitted that this conduct was “inappropriate, unsafe and inconsistent with expected standards in a shared accommodation environment”.

Despite these allegations, Fair Work commissioner Alana Matheson accepted the worker’s assertion that he was wearing underwear when he entered the pool, after he explained that he woke up the next day in wet boardshorts – ruling the dismissal unfair, ordering Sirrom to pay the worker $9,543 in compensation.

In late 2025, the worker attended a Christmas celebration at his village of employment with four colleagues, where he allegedly drank six to nine alcoholic beverages in the pool area before leaving the gathering at 11pm.

The worker commenced his role in late 2024 and lived in the accommodation he worked in alongside workers from nearby mine sites.

The gathering allegedly commenced in the village’s barbecue area at about 7pm, involving “a couple of alcoholic beverages and music”, and “exchanging gifts”, a witness said.

The party allegedly moved to the pool area at 8am. The cleaner alleged that he had between five and six drinks earlier in the night and had another drink or two near the end of the night.

Another witness alleged that music was played until 10pm, which was around the time when the cleaner entered the pool, intoxicated, noting that he appeared very chirpy at the time. The worker alleged that he entered the pool at the same time as a mine worker, a resident.

According to a witness, the intoxicated cleaner was cheered on to strip before he jumped into the pool with this worker.

While this witness alleged several men verbally encouraged the worker to remove his clothing, she did not visually confirm the nudity; however, several individuals at the table where she was seated allegedly said that he was naked and cheered him on.

“One of the other boys [sic] jumped in for a bit, and then three boys [sic] from the gym came out for a quick swim after their workout as well,” she said

“The [worker] remained in the pool for an extended period, including time spent on an inflatable air mattress.”

During the show-cause meeting before his dismissal, his employer alleged that he entered the pool naked in front of colleagues and guests, and consumed alcohol after Sirrom’s 10pm curfew.

“There was no rule against drinking outside work hours at the facilities or swimming in the pool; however, there is a site rule that says employees are not allowed to swim naked,” the commissioner said.

In response to Sirrom’s allegations, the worker submitted that he did not remember whether or not he was naked during the incident. “Unsure, when I woke up in the morning, I had by (sic) bordies (sic) on my quick dries. I was too drunk to remember ... I wish I could remember,” he said at the show-cause meeting.

After the incident, the worker was stood down before an investigation led to his dismissal on allegations which are asserted to have been substantiated and that his nudity “posed a significant safety, behavioural, and reputational risk to [Sirrom] and was considered serious misconduct”.

In light of this assertion, Matheson accepted that nudity was prohibited in the pool area; however, she said the dismissal was unjust because the alleged conduct was not proven on the balance of probabilities.

In her decision, the commissioner attached more weight to the worker’s recollection of waking up in wet board shorts while wearing underwear. “The [worker] said he still had his underwear on when he woke, and his board shorts must have been wet because his underpants underneath had been wet,” Matheson ruled.

Matheson also dismissed Sirrom’s assertion that the worker had contravened a curfew, noting that it is unclear whether the village has a curfew prohibiting drinking after 10pm, with site rules only mentioning a ban on excessive noise between 10pm and 4:30am.

“I did not find the [worker] to be a particularly credible witness in circumstances where he did not recall key information when he participated in the show cause meeting but purported to remember things during his unfair dismissal proceedings,” Matheson said.

“Despite my reservations around the [worker’s] credibility, I consider the evidentiary case of [Sirrom] to be poor.”

“The [worker] maintained he was wearing underwear, his explanation being that he woke up in wet boardshorts.”

Based on the unsatisfactory evidence from Sirrom, Matheson ruled the dismissal unfair, upholding the worker’s unfair dismissal application, ordering his employer to pay him $9,543 in compensation for lost wages.

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.