A haul truck operator at a Queensland coal mine was dismissed after his employer accused him of aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards a colleague. A Fair Work Commission member found the sacking was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, and ordered his reinstatement. A Full Bench has now dismissed the company's appeal against that outcome.
What the Commission decided
Karl Mouat worked for OS MCAP Pty Ltd at the Goonyella Riverside mine from 2020 until his dismissal in April 2025. The company accused him of confronting a co-worker, Kacy Brazier, in an aggressive and intimidating way on two occasions, once in a crib hut and again at a bus stop, after Mr Mouat heard that Mr Brazier had made offensive comments about his partner.
Commissioner Simpson found the company had not established that Mr Mouat's conduct on either occasion was actually aggressive or intimidating, and so there was no valid reason for the dismissal. He also found procedural failures in the investigation, including that statements from three witnesses who saw the bus stop incident never reached the manager who made the decision to terminate. Taken together, the Commissioner concluded the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, and ordered that Mr Mouat be reinstated to a position at a different mine site, with his service maintained and lost pay made up.
On appeal, the Full Bench agreed to hear the case because it raised a question about how the Commission should apply the requirement that a dismissed worker be given a chance to respond to the reasons for dismissal, but it found no error in the original decision and dismissed the appeal.
What was actually in dispute
OS MCAP argued across seven detailed grounds that the Commissioner had misapplied the law, failed to properly weigh the evidence, given inadequate reasons and made factual errors. A central complaint was that the Commissioner was wrong to find Mr Mouat had been denied a fair opportunity to respond, given that the reasons in his termination letter matched the reasons given earlier in a show cause letter.
The Full Bench rejected this. It found that statements from three eyewitnesses to the bus stop incident were never put before the manager who decided to sack Mr Mouat, and that this was a real procedural failure that mattered to fairness, not a technical oversight. The Bench noted that if those accounts, which were unfavourable to the company's version of events, had reached the decision maker, they could have led to a different outcome.
The company also argued the Commissioner had failed to grapple with its submissions, including a document summarising problems with the credibility of Mr Mouat's witnesses. The Full Bench disagreed, finding the Commissioner had dealt with that evidence in detail even without referring to the document by name. A separate complaint about the exclusion of fresh evidence from a witness called Mr Stenning was also rejected, the Bench finding the Commissioner's ruling to exclude late evidence about an old, undisciplined incident was within his discretion.
The company further argued the decision was illogical or legally unreasonable, pointing to findings about Mr Mouat's temperament and his likely future conduct if reinstated. The Full Bench found the threshold for establishing illogicality is high, and that the Commissioner's findings were based on a detailed and orthodox assessment of the evidence, not an irrational leap.
What this means
The decision confirms that a Full Bench will not readily interfere with a Commissioner's factual findings or reasoning process in an unfair dismissal case, even where an employer mounts a wide ranging appeal. It also underlines how seriously the Commission treats an employer's duty to put relevant evidence before the person actually making the decision to dismiss, a matter the Commission weighs when deciding whether a dismissal was procedurally fair.