Safety termination not harsh

A Queensland forklift driver who broke his employer’s “golden rules” by operating his vehicle while a customer was in an exclusion zone has failed to convince the Fair Work Commission that his dismissal was unfair, after supporting evidence from a customer collapsed under cross-examination.

The forklift operator denied the incident — which was reported by a fellow operator — and claimed he was not told his employment was at risk until his employment was terminated.

The operator had been trained and tested on the golden rules, so he was clearly aware of them.

Acknowledging the company’s efforts to ensure compliance, the senior deputy president said it was “abundantly clear” the forklift operator did not conform to requirements and that his conduct contributed to an “unsafe workplace and placed a person at imminent risk”.

The senior deputy president also said the employee’s failure to “give effect” to the safety training provided a valid reason for dismissing him and found he was made aware of the nature of the allegation, the potential consequences and had an opportunity to defend his conduct.

“An employee who after reasonable training does not adopt the behavioural cues necessary to achieve an employer’s reasonable safety expectations in a dangerous workplace, is a risk to him or herself, to others, and has acted to cause a loss of trust in the employment relationship,” he said.

“By failing to give effect to his safety-related training, [the forklift operator] created a safety risk (to customers and fellow workers) that was fatal to the trust and confidence inherent to the employment relationship,” Senior Deputy President Richards said.

This decision has relevance to all employers in that the development of ‘safety policies, procedures or ‘’golden rules’’ also requires that the business implement them successfully. This includes providing the necessary training and instruction but also monitoring of compliance and being prepared to manage non-conformance.

The success of this termination was largely due to the employer’s clearly documented actions, which addressed the employees past safety breaches and included clear records of training and instruction, which the employee did not dispute.

 

Mr Mark Hanley v Stramit Corporation Pty Limited T/A Stramit Building Products – Rockhampton