[2025] FWCFB 106
Citation: [2025] FWCFB 106
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
Craig Hancock was dismissed from his role as a crane operator at Sydney International Container Terminals (Hutchison) after consuming a glass of wine before his shift and being involved in an accident. His blood alcohol concentration (BAC) reading was 0.025, exceeding the company's zero-tolerance policy. Hutchison argued Hancock should have been aware of a policy change reducing the allowable BAC to zero, communicated via email and toolbox meetings. The Deputy President found the dismissal harsh and unreasonable, ordering reinstatement with backpay and continuity of service.
What was decided
Hutchison sought permission to appeal the Deputy President’s decision to reinstate Hancock. The Fair Work Commission Full Bench refused permission to appeal. They found the Deputy President correctly applied established legal principles and the case was fact-specific, not raising issues of general importance. The Full Bench noted some arguments were not raised initially and didn’t disclose a sufficiently arguable case of appealable error.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure clear and effective communication of policy changes, particularly regarding safety-critical matters like drug and alcohol policies. Relying solely on email communication may be insufficient, especially if employees don't routinely check work emails on personal devices. Adequate training and confirmation of understanding are crucial.
What it means for employees
Employees are responsible for understanding workplace policies. While employers have a duty to communicate changes effectively, employees should proactively seek clarification if unsure about policy requirements. The decision highlights the importance of confirming understanding of policy changes.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwcfb106.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 →