Sacked days after a 'final warning' that wasn't final: dismissal ruled unfair

A warehouse and manufacturing assistant who raised safety concerns about a factory saw and later clashed with his employer's HR manager was dismissed within days of receiving what his employer called a Final Written Warning. The Fair Work Commission found the dismissal was unfair and ordered the company to pay compensation.

What the Commission decided

Bryan Davies worked for The Trustee For Safety Xpress Unit Trust as a warehouse and manufacturing assistant from mid 2023 until his dismissal in October 2025. His employer relied on five reasons for sacking him, including claims he had falsified safety paperwork, misused recording devices, pestered staff for CCTV footage, and behaved aggressively towards the People and Culture Manager.

The Commission worked through each allegation and found most of them were not made out. The claim of fraudulent safety reporting failed because the comment Mr Davies wrote on a safety checklist accurately reflected what he had been told by the company's own director after an inspection. The claim about misuse of a recording device also failed, since Mr Davies stopped trying to record meetings once he was told consent was required, and no further attempts were made. Allegations that he pressured staff for CCTV footage or secretly recorded colleagues were not supported by evidence at all.

The Commission did accept that Mr Davies behaved inappropriately and aggressively towards the People and Culture Manager, particularly during an unannounced visit to her office on 1 October 2025. Even so, in the absence of direct evidence from the manager herself, the Commission was not satisfied this conduct was serious enough on its own to justify dismissal.

A central problem for the employer was the document it called a Final Written Warning. The Commission found it never actually told Mr Davies his job was at risk, only that further misconduct might lead to disciplinary action. He was suspended on pay the same day, then dismissed five days later without ever returning to work or being given a genuine chance to respond. The Commission described the letter as, in substance, a 'Show Cause' letter, an issue explored further in this guide to unfair dismissal claims.