Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v the Respondent
Citation: [2011] FCAFC 54
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a miner by Coal & Allied Mining Services. He was dismissed after removing contractors' locks from equipment in breach of safety procedures. the Applicant applied to Fair Work Australia alleging unfair dismissal. A Commissioner initially rejected his claim but a Full Bench of Fair Work Australia found the dismissal was 'manifestly harsh' and reinstated him, holding there were inadequate grounds for termination despite the safety breach.
What was decided
Coal & Allied challenged the Full Bench decision in the Federal Court. The Full Court dismissed the challenge, upholding the reinstatement. The court found the Full Bench correctly applied s 387 of the Fair Work Act by considering all prescribed factors (capacity, conduct, site matters) and was entitled to find the dismissal manifestly harsh and unjust given the circumstances and the remoteness of actual injury risk.
What it means for employers
Even where an employee breaches safety procedures, employers must follow fair processes and consider all relevant factors under s 387 before dismissing. Dismissal must be proportionate to the conduct. A single breach of procedure, where no actual injury occurred or was likely, may not support dismissal regardless of the employer's intentions.
What it means for employees
Employees dismissed for safety breaches are not automatically without remedy. Fair Work will consider the seriousness of the breach, actual risk of harm, and whether dismissal was the only reasonable option.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2011/2011fcafc0054Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections