A Mars Australia team leader with 23 years' service was dismissed after a forklift punctured a large box of peppermint mints and the agreed plan to salvage half and discard half fell apart on the factory floor. The Fair Work Commission found she was not to blame for what went wrong and ordered her reinstated.
What the Commission decided
Linda McFadden supervised a mint production line at Mars' Asquith factory in Sydney when a forklift accidentally pierced a large carton of mints, raising contamination concerns. She and the company's food safety specialist agreed that half the product, roughly half of 485kg, would be kept and the rest thrown out. The next day, two operators sorted the mints while she was not present and only a fraction was actually discarded, with most of the product released back into circulation.
Mars dismissed Ms McFadden for failing to make sure the agreed plan was carried out and for not telling the food safety team when things went wrong. The Commission found she never gave any instruction to depart from the agreed plan, was not present when the sorting happened, and genuinely believed the plan had been followed when she was told later that day.
Deputy President Slevin found the company's own internal tracking systems, called SAP and Nexus, were riddled with errors and delays involving several other staff, and that the formal food safety procedure was breached at multiple steps by multiple people, not just by Ms McFadden. The Commission held her conduct did not amount to a serious breach justifying dismissal and that there was no valid reason for the sacking.
The investigation was also found to be flawed. It focused narrowly on Ms McFadden's actions and treated her detailed, evidence based response as an attempt to blame others rather than a genuine account of what happened. The Commission found this an unfair characterisation and noted that offers to let her resign were made before the process had even concluded, pointing to prejudgment.
Weighing her unblemished record, her length of service and the serious personal impact of losing her job, the Commission found the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
What was actually in dispute
The key argument was not whether the agreed food safety plan had been followed, both sides agreed it had not, but whose fault that was. Mars argued Ms McFadden's failure to confirm the plan was implemented, and her silence when discrepancies emerged, amounted to serious misconduct and a breakdown in the trust needed for a leadership role.
The Commission rejected this. It found the breakdown involved several employees and multiple failures in record keeping and communication that were never properly investigated. It also rejected the company's argument that reinstatement was inappropriate because it had lost trust and confidence in her. Witnesses who opposed her return, including those directly involved in the mishandling, were found to carry little weight given their own role in the events.
What this means
The decision turned on the Commission's finding that a genuine valid reason for dismissal must be soundly based on the evidence, not simply on an employer's belief following a narrow investigation. It also reaffirms that a claimed loss of trust and confidence will not defeat reinstatement unless it is rationally grounded in the employee's own conduct. Readers wanting a general overview of how the Commission approaches these remedies can see the unfair dismissal hub.