A mechanical fitter on the Snowy 2.0 hydro project was sacked after inspecting a pipe without following full isolation procedures. The Fair Work Commission found the company had a valid reason to discipline him, but that sacking him was harsh and unreasonable.
What the Commission decided
Albertus Neethling worked as a Mechanical Fitter and Leading Hand for SC Hydro on the Snowy 2.0 project at Tantangara. In June 2025 he and a colleague inspected pipework connected to a wastewater tank without completing the full permit and isolation process required for the job. Deputy President Wright found this breached the company's safety procedures, giving it a valid reason to take action.
But the Commission rejected the company's claim that Mr Neethling had deliberately flouted the rules. It found no evidence to support that conclusion, accepting instead that he genuinely, if wrongly, believed the task was low risk and that stricter isolation steps did not apply. The Commission also found the task did not actually expose anyone to a real risk of harm, preferring evidence from a plumber witness about water pressure in the tank over the company's own risk assessment.
The Commission found SC Hydro never put its view that Mr Neethling's conduct was wilful to him before deciding to dismiss him, and overlooked an apology he had given in his written response to the allegations. The company's own industrial relations advisor accepted under cross-examination that this information might have changed the outcome. Taking into account Mr Neethling's clean record over three and a half years and his thirty-year trade career without any other safety issue, the Commission found the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable.
What was actually in dispute
The case largely turned on two questions: whether Mr Neethling knowingly broke the rules, and whether his actions put anyone at risk. SC Hydro argued he was a trained, experienced Permit Holder who made a conscious decision to skip the proper isolation steps, and that this endangered people working near pressurised water and electrical equipment.
Mr Neethling accepted by the time of the hearing that the permit system applied to his task, but maintained he had genuinely assessed the job as low risk given the water levels and the use of a backup pump. The Commission preferred this account, noting his explanation stayed consistent from the night of the incident through to the hearing, and that he had built a physical model of the tank to demonstrate why he believed the risk was minimal.
The Commission was also troubled by how long it took SC Hydro to act. A recommendation to dismiss Mr Neethling was made in August 2025, but the dismissal did not take effect until January 2026, a delay the Commission described as grossly excessive given the company knew of the toll the uncertainty was taking on him.
What this means
Deputy President Wright found that reinstatement would be inappropriate given lingering concerns about whether Mr Neethling fully grasped the safety procedures, but left open whether compensation should be ordered, and if so how much, pending further evidence from both sides. The decision illustrates how a genuine safety breach does not automatically make a dismissal fair: the Commission still weighs the employee's intent, the actual risk involved, and whether the employer gave the worker a real chance to respond before deciding to sack rather than warn.