In a recent decision the Fair Work Commission has reinstated a sugar refinery employee to her position, finding that there was insufficient evidence of alleged sleeping at work and she was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The Facts
The employee was a Pan Boiler at the Plane Creek sugar mill in Sarina, Queensland.
On 22 November 2023 she received a disciplinary warning for sleeping at work.
On 10 September 2025 she was told that 2 other workers had complained she was sleeping on the previous shift. Her evidence was that they could not have properly seen her from their work locations.
The Senior Sugar Boiler gave evidence that he worked with her on the shift, knew the allegations were unfounded, and that the workers could not have properly seen her from their positions.
On 11 September the employer was given a statement by another employee calling the allegations “BS” and stating that he had never seen her sleeping on duty.
In a meeting on 11 September 2024, at which the employee was not present, the employer decided to terminate her employment.
On 13 September 2024 the employer prepared a termination letter. The employer also directed the employee to attend a meeting on 14 September 2024 even though she was on personal leave. The purpose of the meeting was to terminate her employment.
On 14 September the employee sent a text message notifying that she could not attend the meeting in the morning but was available from 12 noon.
The employer emailed the termination letter to her and confirmed it by a text message.
The employee applied for unfair dismissal.
The Decision
The Commissioner allowed the application, finding that:
- There was no valid reason for dismissal as there was insufficient evidence of her sleeping at work, and that the other reasons for dismissal relied on by the employer could not be established.
- Even if there was a valid reason for dismissal the employee was not provided any opportunity to respond to the reasons for dismissal before the dismissal decision was made.
- In view of the employer’s size it could be expected to have reasonable policies and procedures in place to deal with conduct and performance.
- It did not lack human resource management specialists and there was no excuse in that regard.
Reinstatement
The Commissioner ordered that the employee should be reinstated to her position, observing that:
- Reinstatement is the primary remedy in unfair dismissal proceedings.
- Even though she was diagnosed with insomnia, anxiety, and/or depression there was no submission that she was incapacitated for work.
- No concern was raised that the position was no longer available.
The Commissioner also ordered that the employee should be paid her lost remuneration between the date the dismissal took effect and the date of reinstatement, and also made an order for continuity of her service.
Implications
The case underlines the importance of employers:
- Properly investigating complaints before making dismissal decisions.
- Giving employees a proper opportunity to respond before making dismissal decisions.
The case is also a reminder that the primary remedy in unfair dismissal is reinstatement and the Fair Work Commission will order reinstatement in appropriate circumstances.
At WorkLegal our experienced team can answer your questions and put you on the right track. A range of fixed-price Initial Consultations will suit most people’s needs in quickly learning what their options are.