[2025] FWC 658
Citation: [2025] FWC 658
What happened
Katrina Saunders was dismissed from her role as a production employee at Bengalla Mining Company Pty Ltd, primarily operating water and haul trucks. The dismissal stemmed from allegations that she interacted with her mobile phone while operating a truck on 10 occasions between January and June 2024, and for having her phone turned on in the cab. Ms. Saunders denies the allegations, claiming her phone inadvertently turned on after being plugged into a portable battery pack during a crib break. Bengalla also alleged a breach of their 'PHMP – Roads or Other Vehicle Operating Area' safety policy regarding mobile phone use. Evidence was presented by Glencore Coal Assets Australia Pty Ltd employee Benjamin Murphy, who monitors operator fatigue and distractions.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed Ms. Saunders’ unfair dismissal application. The Commission found Bengalla had a valid reason for the dismissal, based on the alleged breaches of company policy regarding mobile phone use while operating machinery. The Commission acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and applied the 'Briginshaw' standard, requiring a high degree of satisfaction before finding misconduct. While the Commission permitted Bengalla to advance a secondary case regarding the policy breach, it ultimately sided with the employer’s findings based on the evidence presented.
What it means for employers
Employers have a right to enforce safety policies, and dismissing employees for breaches, particularly those involving safety risks, can be a valid reason for dismissal. Thorough investigation and clear communication of policies are crucial. Employers should ensure they have sufficient evidence to support allegations of misconduct before taking disciplinary action.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of and adhere to company policies, especially those related to safety. If an employee disputes allegations of misconduct, they should present evidence to support their case. It's important to understand that the Fair Work Commission will consider the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence presented by both sides.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc658.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
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 by AI 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 →