the Applicant v SC Hydro Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2411
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000000
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed from SC Hydro Pty Ltd on January 19, 2026, after failing to follow safety procedures during a pipe inspection at the Tantangara site. the Applicant, a Mechanical Fitter and Leading Hand, initially denied the need for specific safety protocols but later acknowledged their relevance. He believed his actions posed minimal risk due to bypassing electrical pumps with a diesel pump. SC Hydro's safety management system requires Permits to Work and isolation procedures. A discussion between the Applicant and his supervisor revealed concerns about non-compliance with these procedures.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found a valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal, but deemed the dismissal harsh and unreasonable. The Commission considered the Applicant's lack of deliberate intent to cause harm, his good safety record, and his apology. Reinstatement was ruled inappropriate. The Deputy President has directed that further evidence and submissions be provided regarding whether compensation is appropriate and, if so, its quantum.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure employees are adequately trained on safety procedures and consistently enforce those protocols. Clear communication of requirements and verification of compliance are essential to mitigate risk and avoid unfair dismissal claims. A robust Permit to Work system should be actively managed and monitored.
What it means for employees
Employees have a responsibility to follow established safety procedures, even if they believe the risk is low. Understanding and adhering to company protocols can prevent disciplinary action and protect personal safety. If unsure about procedures, employees should seek clarification from supervisors.
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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2411.pdfWant 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. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
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 →