Mars ordered to reinstate employee following ‘flawed’ investigation process

After allegations of misconduct led to her dismissal, an employee at a Mars confectionery company has won her job back and payment for lost wages following a “flawed” investigation.

A fired supervisor at a factory owned and operated by Mars Australia has been awarded reinstatement, payment of lost wages, and continuation of service after the Fair Work Commission found that she was “targeted” in an investigation following a food safety incident at which she was not present.

In his 24 July 2026 decision, Fair Work deputy president Tony Slevin concluded that the company failed to take into account the other employees involved in the incident, finding that the investigation that led to the applicant’s dismissal was flawed.

On 10 December 2025, at a Mars factory in Asquith, NSW, an employee with an unblemished 23-year tenure was following a food safety incident that occurred two months prior.

“[Another employee] was using a small forklift, also known as a hand truck, to move a large carton or transcase of hard-pressed peppermint mints. The carton contained around 850kg of mints.

“While attempting to insert the tynes of the forklift into the pallet at the bottom of the transcase, [this employee] accidentally punctured the carton to a depth that the mints were exposed. This raised immediate concerns about potential contamination,” Slevin said.

“After discussion, it was agreed that half of the mints in the carton should be discarded.”

While the applicant, who was the supervisor for the area, was not present when the clean-up occurred, she “was not aware that product had been discarded until later that day when [an employee] told her a little more than half had been kept”.

Out of the 480 kilograms, it was found that 400kg of the mints were kept for circulation, not 240kg as agreed.

“[Two employees] scooped approximately 400kg of the mints from the transcase, and only 80kg was discarded. The 80kg was labelled for quarantine and set aside to be discarded, and the 400kg which was recovered was scooped into another carton and was released for distribution,” the commission heard.

“Only the original transcase, which had 80kg remaining, had been labelled. The new transcase had not and was in circulation.”

One day later, the company’s electronic systems recorded that 405kg had been released into circulation, after it had been escalated to a manager for release.

“This step allowed the product to be moved from the manufacturing line to the packaging line, and potentially into circulation, without further approvals,” the commission heard.

Twelve days later, the quantity was pulled from circulation, retrieved, and discarded.

Shortly after, the company commenced an investigation into the supervisor’s involvement in this food safety incident.

It alleged that the supervisor made decisions outside designated authority, failed to follow instructions from the Q&FS team, willfully or recklessly engaged in conduct leading to the release of contaminated product, failed to comply with company policies, procedures, rules, and regulations, and recklessly withheld relevant information from the Q&FS.

The deputy president found that Mars had fixated its investigation on the employee as opposed to investigating the food safety failures that were evident in the actions of the other staff of the company.

This led to her dismissal two months later, shortly after which she was offered an opportunity to resign under a mutual separation agreement.

“The offers to permit [the supervisor] to resign before the investigation was complete strongly suggest this. [The HR team’s] investigation report recommended that [the supervisor] be allowed to resign.

“The report was prepared before [the supervisor] had the chance to respond to the factual findings made. [The supervisor] was also asked to resign prior to the final decision being made,” the deputy president said.

“The financial impact of the dismissal [for the employee] is compounded by the loss of a defined benefits retirement scheme, resulting in a projected loss of over $300,000 at retirement.”

After he determined that the investigation process was flawed, Slevin ruled that the dismissal was unfair, ordering the confectionery company to reinstate the employee, provide payment for lost wages, and grant continuity of service.

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

Carlos Tse

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