Graduate Nurse Patient-Safety Misconduct: When Repeated Medication and Observation Failures Justify Summary Dismissal Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Applicant v Respondent [2025] FWC 370 (U2024/11618), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Fair Work Commission
Presiding Judge: Deputy President Bell
Cause of Action: Application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Judgment Date: 1 August 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Unfair dismissal
Keyword 3: Serious misconduct
Keyword 4: Patient safety risk
Keyword 5: Graduate nurse supervision
Keyword 6: Procedural fairness under s 387

Background

The Applicant was employed as a graduate nurse in a Victorian public hospital network. The graduate program was designed to transition newly qualified nurses into ward practice through supervised shifts, competency sign-offs, and structured support.

The Respondent’s case was not that the Applicant made a single, isolated error. It was that the Applicant repeatedly failed at core bedside tasks that are foundational to nursing safety: medication selection and administration checks, timely monitoring of vital signs and escalation tasks, accurate documentation, and prioritisation of urgent care. The Respondent said that, after extensive support and direct supervision, the Applicant’s performance still fell so far short of expected standards that he posed a patient-safety risk unless supervised continuously.

The Applicant, for his part, contended that he was treated unfairly, that the process was biased, that training was inadequate, and that some events were misunderstood or overstated. He emphasised his graduate status and argued that the circumstances did not justify the characterisation of serious misconduct or the severity of summary dismissal.

This chapter does not reveal the outcome. Instead, it frames what the Commission had to decide: whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, measured against the evidence and the statutory criteria.

Core Disputes and Claims

What the Commission was required to determine:

1. Whether there was a valid reason related to the Applicant’s conduct or capacity, particularly whether the conduct amounted to serious misconduct because it caused a serious and imminent risk to the health or safety of a person.
2. Whether the Respondent complied with procedural fairness in the investigation, notification, and opportunity to respond.
3. Whether, considering all s 387 factors, the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

Relief sought:

Applicant: reinstatement or compensation for unfair dismissal (s 394 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)).
Respondent: dismissal of the application on the basis the dismissal was justified by serious misconduct and was procedurally fair.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The litigation began with an employment relationship that, on paper, should have been structured for support. Graduate nurses ordinarily receive orientation, supernumerary shifts, and then integrate into ward ratios while still paired with senior staff. The Respondent’s evidence was that most graduates transition quickly to largely autonomous ward functioning.

In this case, the relationship between the parties shifted early because the Applicant struggled to meet baseline clinical requirements. The Respondent’s clinical educators and nurse managers raised concerns that the Applicant could not consistently demonstrate medication safety competence, timely patient assessment, or reliable documentation. Instead of following the standard graduate-staffing model, the Respondent placed the Applicant under direct supervision at all times. That decision mattered: it meant the Respondent was expending extra staffing resources and implicitly acknowledging that the Applicant could not be left to practise independently.

From there, the Respondent attempted early, less formal performance management steps. An informal learning objective plan was proposed, focusing on medication administration, patient care, and professional conduct. The Respondent said the Applicant did not engage with that process. In the Respondent’s account, meetings about these supports were strained, and the Applicant demonstrated limited insight into the seriousness of the concerns.

A performance improvement plan followed. Its focus was both behavioural and clinical: correct medication practices, completion of vital signs monitoring and documentation, and professional ward communication. However, during the performance improvement period, the Respondent said further incidents occurred in real time on the ward—some of which were near misses intercepted only because direct supervision was in place.

Detail Reconstruction

The “daily life” of the employment relationship in a hospital ward is not about corporate targets; it is about minute-by-minute prioritisation. A patient deteriorates, observations are due, a medication round must be safe and timely, documentation must tell the next clinician what happened, and any uncertainty must be escalated. This case turned on the Respondent’s allegation that the Applicant repeatedly could not manage that daily reality even with support.

The financial interweaving in this matter was not personal. It was institutional. The Respondent effectively funded a high-cost supervision arrangement by rostering additional experienced nurses so that the Applicant’s work could be checked continuously. The dispute intensified because the Respondent considered that arrangement unsustainable and unsafe if ever withdrawn.

Conflict Foreshadowing

The decisive moments were not dramatic courtroom revelations. They were ward-level safety events that, when read together, created a pattern: medication selection errors, failure to perform required monitoring tasks, inadequate documentation after significant events, and an incident involving an air bubble in an intravenous administration context that management regarded as a serious near miss.

When an employer frames a dismissal as serious misconduct in a clinical setting, the “story” typically pivots on one event that crystallises risk. Here, the evidence showed that the Respondent treated the air-bubble incident as a turning point, escalating the matter from performance management into a formal investigation process.

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Denials and non-recall: The Applicant denied some incidents and said he could not recall others.
2. Graduate context: He relied on the proposition that he was still learning and that errors were part of a transition period.
3. Training and resourcing: He suggested the Respondent did not adequately train him in certain tasks.
4. Bias and confirmation bias: He alleged the Respondent’s witnesses were biased and that the investigation reflected pre-judgment.
5. Risk management argument: He argued that if he was truly unsafe, the Respondent should have stood him down earlier, and that allowing him to continue working under supervision suggested the risk was manageable.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Contemporaneous shift notes and clinical progress reports: The Respondent relied heavily on real-time documentation by multiple experienced nurses supervising the Applicant.
2. Consistent witness accounts across multiple supervisors: Several clinical support nurses and managers described similar failures independently.
3. Specific near misses: The Respondent highlighted incidents where wrong medication selection or incorrect labelling could have led to serious harm but was intercepted because of supervision.
4. Policy and standards context: The Respondent described baseline clinical standards, including the “five rights” of medication administration, as fundamental.
5. Formal process documents: Allegations letter, investigation meetings, show cause process, and termination meeting were used to demonstrate procedural fairness.

Core Dispute Points

1. Fact disputes: Whether certain ward incidents occurred as alleged, and the significance of “near miss” events when intercepted before reaching a patient.
2. Characterisation: Whether the pattern of conduct constituted serious misconduct, particularly conduct causing serious and imminent risk to health or safety.
3. Causation of risk: Whether risk must culminate in actual harm, or whether exposure to serious risk is sufficient.
4. Procedural fairness: Whether the Applicant was notified of reasons, given evidence access, and afforded a real opportunity to respond before dismissal.
5. Proportionality: Whether summary dismissal was too severe given the Applicant’s graduate status and the Respondent’s capacity to continue supervision.

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In Commission matters, written witness statements function like affidavits in their practical effect: they are structured narratives of fact, tied to documents, and tested under cross-examination. The strategic heart of this case was how each side built or attacked reliability.

How Each Party Constructed a Persuasive Narrative

Respondent’s approach:

• Modular incident storytelling: Each alleged event was set out as a discrete clinical episode, linked to shift notes.
• Safety framing: Incidents were not treated as isolated mistakes but as repeated failures in basic standards with foreseeable risk.
• Multi-witness corroboration: Different supervisors reported similar concerns across different dates, supporting a “pattern” inference.
• Clinical significance explanation: Witnesses did not merely say “this is wrong”; they explained why it matters for patient deterioration, medication continuity, and harm prevention.

Applicant’s approach:

• Contesting the interpretation: Where the Applicant did not deny an event, he often contested its severity or called it a training issue.
• Challenging credibility: The Applicant asserted bias, suggesting supervisors interpreted everything through an assumption of incompetence.
• Minimising risk: On the air-bubble incident, the Applicant attempted to use external material to argue air bubbles are not necessarily harmful, and framed the incident as not inherently lethal.

Comparing Competing Versions of the Same Fact

A key divergence in style was this:

• The Respondent’s statements were anchored in “what was seen, what was written down, and what was expected next”.
• The Applicant’s statements often relied on “I do not recall, I was not taught, it would have been caught by double-checking”.

In clinical negligence terms, the Applicant’s position resembled a reliance on downstream safeguards. The Respondent’s position treated the Applicant’s role as part of the safety barrier itself: a nurse is not meant to depend on someone else to catch fundamental errors; the nurse must perform basic checks reliably.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions About Affidavits

The Commission’s procedural handling of evidence in this kind of matter tends to reinforce three principles:

1. Reliability: Contemporaneous records often carry greater weight than later reconstructions.
2. Specificity: General claims of bias are weak unless tied to concrete contradictions or motive evidence.
3. Testing: Even a plausible written account must survive cross-examination, especially where safety and dismissal are at stake.

The Respondent’s documentary strategy—producing detailed shift notes—functioned as a credibility anchor. The Applicant’s strategy—attacking bias broadly—carried a higher forensic risk because it required persuading the Commission that multiple professionals independently produced unreliable accounts.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing, the Commission process involved standard procedural directions typical for an unfair dismissal matter involving allegations of serious misconduct:

1. Filing and exchange of witness statements from both parties.
2. Provision of relevant documents supporting allegations and responses, including shift notes, investigation correspondence, and meeting notes.
3. Listing for hearing days for evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, and submissions.
4. Directions concerning representation, including the Applicant’s right to appear self-represented and the Respondent’s right to be represented by counsel.
5. Post-hearing written submissions to address s 387 considerations and case authorities.

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The hearing centred on the Commission’s fact-finding duty. The Applicant’s focus was to reframe events as training-related, exaggerated, or unfairly interpreted. The Respondent’s focus was to show:

• the incidents happened;
• they were clinically significant;
• they were repeatedly addressed with feedback;
• the Applicant did not reliably improve; and
• the risk was serious, imminent, and only prevented by continuous supervision.

Cross-examination revealed a recurring dynamic: where confronted with contemporaneous notes, the Applicant often shifted to either non-recall or an assertion that the system would have caught the error at the double-check stage. The Respondent’s witnesses, by contrast, were consistent and anchored in written records.

Core Evidence Confrontation

Three categories of confrontation dominated:

1. Medication safety basics: the “right drug” and correct labelling, and the inability to reliably apply basic checks.
2. Monitoring and prioritisation: failure to complete required observations, or delay in providing urgent care such as immediate pain relief.
3. Intravenous safety: an air bubble incident that management treated as a serious near miss with potential for catastrophic harm.

In practical terms, the Respondent framed the Applicant as a clinician who required continuous “guard rails”. The Applicant framed himself as a novice who, with time and training, would have stabilised.

Judicial Reasoning With Judicial Original Quotation Principle

The Commission expressly identified the legal test that governs its role in serious-misconduct dismissals. The Commission held that it must determine whether the misconduct occurred, not merely whether the employer believed it occurred.

“The test is not whether the employer believed, on reasonable grounds after sufficient enquiry, that the employee was guilty of the conduct which resulted in termination.”

This statement was determinative because it set the evidentiary frame: the Commission would independently weigh the evidence and make its own findings about what happened and whether the conduct met the serious misconduct characterisation. It also neutralised any attempt to win the case solely by pointing to alleged flaws in the employer’s internal belief formation, unless those flaws translated into unfairness under the statutory factors.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Commission dismissed the application. It determined that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and therefore the Applicant was not entitled to an unfair dismissal remedy. The Commission indicated that a formal order would issue separately reflecting that outcome.

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This decision is jurisprudentially valuable because it shows how “performance” concerns can lawfully cross the boundary into “serious misconduct” in a safety-critical profession.

In many workplaces, persistent underperformance is managed through warnings, training, and gradual escalation. In a hospital ward, however, repeated failures in basic safety tasks can be characterised as conduct causing serious and imminent risk to health or safety. The decision illustrates that a clinician’s lack of care and diligence, even without malicious intent, can satisfy serious misconduct where risk exposure is immediate and significant.

The decision also clarifies a practical point for industrial advocates: an employee’s repeated reliance on “it would have been caught by someone else” is not a persuasive defence where the role’s core purpose is to be part of the safety barrier.

Judgment Points

1. Pattern evidence can outweigh dispute-by-dispute denial
   The Commission accepted a broad pattern because multiple supervisors independently reported similar concerns supported by contemporaneous notes. A pattern of basic failures can be more persuasive than a narrow contest over one episode.

2. “Near miss” evidence is powerful in safety-critical roles
   The Respondent did not need to wait for actual injury. The Commission accepted that intercepted errors still demonstrate risk and poor competence where the prevention relied on extraordinary supervision.

3. Graduate status mitigates, but does not excuse fundamental safety failures
   The Commission recognised that graduates can be less experienced. However, it held that the Applicant’s clinical ability fell so far short of required standards that continued employment without constant supervision would expose patients to serious and imminent risk.

4. Broad bias allegations fail without concrete contradictions
   The Applicant’s “confirmation bias” theory was rejected where witnesses were credible, consistent, and supported by contemporaneous notes.

5. Procedural fairness is assessed in substance, not perfection
   The Commission noted the process could have been clearer in some respects, but it did not find any disadvantage that rendered dismissal unfair.

Legal Basis

The central statutory framework was s 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), requiring consideration of:

• valid reason (conduct or capacity);
• notification of reason;
• opportunity to respond;
• support person;
• warnings where dismissal relates to unsatisfactory performance;
• size of enterprise and HR expertise;
• other relevant matters.

The case also engaged the serious misconduct concept through the Respondent’s industrial instrument definition reflecting the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) regulation 1.07. A key interpretive point was that, for conduct causing serious and imminent risk to health or safety, it is not necessary that the employee was wilfully or deliberately seeking that harmful outcome.

Evidence Chain

Victory Point 1: Contemporaneous shift notes as credibility spine
The Respondent’s witnesses repeatedly relied on notes written at the time. This reduced the risk of reconstruction, exaggeration, or hindsight bias.

Victory Point 2: Multi-supervisor corroboration
Concerns came from several experienced clinicians across multiple dates. That diversity of observers made it difficult to attribute the story to a single grudge or misunderstanding.

Victory Point 3: Specificity of incidents
The Respondent presented detailed episodes: wrong medication selection, incorrect dosage labelling, missing observations, deficient documentation after a medical emergency call, delayed urgent pain relief, and the IV air bubble incident.

Victory Point 4: The supervision fact itself proved the Respondent’s caution
The Respondent’s decision to roster an additional supervising nurse continuously functioned as objective evidence of the seriousness of concerns and the extraordinary support already provided.

Victory Point 5: The turning-point escalation was logically tied to risk
Management treated the air-bubble incident as a serious safety concern and escalated to a formal process. The Commission accepted that the escalation was consistent with the seriousness of potential harm.

Victory Point 6: The Applicant’s admissions and non-recall weakened resistance
Where an applicant concedes events occurred, or cannot recall them, and the employer has contemporaneous records, the employer’s version becomes the default on the balance of probabilities.

Victory Point 7: The Applicant’s external material did not fit the forensic question
Attempting to use an academic paper about gas absorption in animal models did not answer the workplace question: whether the Applicant’s actions exposed a patient to serious and imminent risk in a clinical setting.

Victory Point 8: The Commission’s independent fact-finding standard
By applying the principle that the Commission must determine whether misconduct occurred, the Respondent’s evidence-driven case was structurally advantaged over a process-critique strategy.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Commission’s reasoning on risk and supervision crystallised the seriousness of the conduct.

“If left unsupervised, there is no doubt in my mind that the Applicant would continue to engage in conduct that (unsupervised) would cause serious and imminent risk to the health or safety of patients.”

This statement was determinative because it linked the evidence pattern to the ultimate legal characterisation. It did not merely say the Applicant was struggling; it found that unsupervised practice would foreseeably expose patients to serious and imminent risk. That finding supports a conclusion that dismissal for serious misconduct was sound, defensible, and well-founded.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

1. Overreliance on graduate status without demonstrating measurable improvement
   A graduate context can explain some errors, but it cannot excuse repeated failures in foundational tasks after repeated feedback.

2. Strategy of disputing credibility without targeted proof
   General claims of bias are weak unless supported by contradictions, motive evidence, or demonstrable inconsistencies. The Commission accepted the Respondent’s witnesses as honest and reliable.

3. The “double-checking will catch it” defence undermined insight
   The Applicant’s insistence that errors would have been detected by others suggested a misunderstanding of the nurse’s own role as a safety barrier, and reinforced the Respondent’s case that he could not practise safely.

4. Weak evidentiary counterweight
   Where the Respondent had contemporaneous notes and multiple witnesses, the Applicant needed strong documentary rebuttal or consistent alternative explanation. Non-recall and broad contestation did not displace the employer’s proof.

5. Process complaints did not translate into statutory unfairness
   Even if parts of the Respondent’s communication could have been clearer, the Commission found the Applicant was notified of the concerns, warned his employment was at risk, and given opportunities to respond.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

Gelagotis v Esso Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FWCFB 6092
Ratio summary: In unfair dismissal matters, the Commission must determine whether the alleged misconduct occurred; it is not enough that the employer believed it occurred on reasonable grounds after investigation. This authority supports the Commission’s independent fact-finding role.

Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371
Ratio summary: A valid reason must be sound, defensible and well-founded, and cannot be capricious, fanciful, spiteful, or prejudiced. This authority guides the assessment of whether the employer’s reason is legitimate.

Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137
Ratio summary: Notification of a valid reason must occur before the termination decision is made, reinforcing the procedural fairness requirement embedded in s 387.

Implications

1. Safety-critical work changes the meaning of “just a mistake”
   In ordinary workplaces, an error can be remediated without existential risk. In a hospital ward, a single misstep can expose someone to serious harm. The law recognises that reality.

2. Your credibility is built before the hearing
   Contemporaneous notes often decide the case. If you are an employee, treat documentation and written feedback seriously. If you are an employer, ensure records are clear, timely, and specific.

3. Insight matters as much as skill
   A person who acknowledges mistakes and learns can often recover. A person who minimises risk or relies on others to catch errors tends to be determined as unsafe in roles where independence is essential.

4. Procedural fairness is not a technical trap; it is real opportunity
   What matters is whether you were told what the concerns were, shown the substance of the evidence, and given a genuine chance to respond before the decision.

5. Supervision can be support, but it can also be proof
   If an organisation allocates extraordinary supervision to keep work safe, that can become compelling evidence of risk if the person still does not improve.

Q&A Session

Q1: Does an employer need to prove a patient was actually harmed to justify dismissal for serious misconduct?
A1: No. The focus can be on exposure to serious and imminent risk. In safety-critical contexts, intercepted errors and near misses can still establish that the conduct created unacceptable risk, particularly if the only thing preventing harm was extraordinary supervision.

Q2: If the employee was a graduate, does that reduce the employer’s ability to dismiss?
A2: Graduate status is relevant, but it is not a shield. The Commission will weigh the degree of support offered, the baseline expectations for the role, the employee’s improvement trajectory, and whether continued employment would expose others to serious risk.

Q3: What is the most effective evidence in an unfair dismissal case involving clinical allegations?
A3: Detailed contemporaneous records, consistent multi-witness accounts, and clear linkage between each incident and clinical risk. For an employee, the strongest rebuttal is often documentary proof of competence, remediation, and consistent alternative accounts that directly confront the employer’s records.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

Employment and Workplace Disputes: Unfair Dismissal in a Safety-Critical Clinical Role, Characterised as Serious Misconduct Due to Patient Safety Risk

Judgment Nature Definition

Final Judgment: Application for unfair dismissal remedy dismissed after full consideration of s 387 factors

---

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Execution Instruction Applied

The following elements are reference standards only. Outcomes tend to be determined by the specific facts, contemporaneous evidence, and the statutory context.

③ Employment and Workplace Disputes (Industrial Relations Law)

Core Test: Unfair Dismissal Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Step 1: Coverage and jurisdictional prerequisites
– You must be a person protected from unfair dismissal within s 382.
– You must have been dismissed at the initiative of the employer.
– The application must be lodged within 21 days after dismissal takes effect, unless an extension is granted.
– The dismissal must not be a case of genuine redundancy.
– If the employer is a small business, the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code may apply; if it applies and is complied with, the dismissal tends to be determined as fair.

Step 2: The core statutory question under s 385 and s 387
The Commission must determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, taking into account:

(a) Valid reason related to conduct or capacity
– The Commission must determine whether the conduct occurred.
– A valid reason must be sound, defensible, and well-founded.
– In safety-critical roles, repeated failures in core tasks can be characterised as conduct creating serious and imminent risk, even where actual harm did not occur.

(b) Notification of the reason
– The employee should be told, in plain and clear terms, the reason for dismissal before the decision is made.
– Sufficient specificity tends to be necessary so the employee can meaningfully respond.

(c) Opportunity to respond
– The employee must have a real chance to respond to the allegations and the asserted reason before termination.

(d) Support person
– If requested, the employer should not unreasonably refuse a support person at dismissal-related meetings.

(e) Warnings for unsatisfactory performance
– Where the dismissal relates to performance, the Commission considers whether warnings were given.
– In cases characterised as serious misconduct, this factor may be neutral or less significant, but warnings and performance management steps can still matter.

(f) Size of the employer’s enterprise
– Larger employers are generally expected to have more robust HR processes.

(g) HR expertise
– Where an employer has dedicated HR expertise, gaps in process may be less readily excused.

(h) Other relevant matters
– For example: consequences for the employee’s future employability, the employee’s length of service, prior record, and whether the dismissal was disproportionate.

Step 3: Serious misconduct lens
Where an employer relies on serious misconduct, the Commission typically examines:
– the gravity of the conduct;
– whether it created serious and imminent risk to health or safety;
– whether trust and confidence was irreparably damaged;
– whether the response was proportionate in the circumstances.

Core Test: General Protections Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Step 1: Identify whether adverse action occurred
– Dismissal is adverse action.

Step 2: Identify a workplace right or protected attribute/activity
– Examples include making a complaint or inquiry, taking lawful leave, engaging in industrial activity.

Step 3: Causal nexus and reverse onus
– The key question is whether the workplace right was a substantial and operative reason for the adverse action.
– The employer bears the onus to prove the prohibited reason was not a reason for the action.

Practical note: If an unfair dismissal claim fails, a general protections claim may still be arguable where there is evidence suggesting a prohibited reason. Success tends to depend on direct evidence of decision-maker reasons and contemporaneous communications.

Core Test: Sham Contracting

This was not the factual pattern here. However, for completeness:
– The Commission or courts examine the totality of the relationship to determine whether a person is truly an independent contractor or effectively an employee.

---

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Employment Context: Procedural Fairness as a Practical Counter-attack

Where unfair dismissal arguments are weak on merits, a party sometimes pivots to fairness-based challenges that do not deny the underlying risk but challenge the pathway to termination.

Procedural fairness considerations that can matter in practice:
– Was the employee provided the key documents that underpin the allegations, such as shift notes and investigation summaries?
– Were allegations sufficiently particularised so the employee could answer them meaningfully?
– Was there a reasonable time to respond, particularly where allegations are numerous?
– Was the decision-maker genuinely open to persuasion, or was the process pre-determined?

Non-absolute risk warning: Even where an employer’s process is imperfect, the Commission may still determine the dismissal was fair if the merits are strong and no practical disadvantage was caused.

Ancillary Claims

• If the employee alleges bias, consider whether there is evidence of apprehended bias or prejudgment that can be tied to decision-maker conduct, not merely supervisor opinions.
• If performance issues overlap with disability, consider whether discrimination law avenues exist. Outcomes tend to depend on medical evidence, reasonable adjustments, and causal reasoning.

---

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• Unfair dismissal application time limit: 21 days from the date dismissal takes effect.
• Jurisdictional coverage: minimum employment period and earnings threshold considerations may apply depending on the employee’s circumstances, award coverage, and enterprise agreement context.
• Practical threshold in serious misconduct cases: the employee often needs a credible factual rebuttal or a compelling procedural unfairness that caused real disadvantage.

Exceptional Channels

• Extension of time: The Commission may extend time in limited circumstances where there is an acceptable reason for delay and it is fair to do so.
• Summary dismissal: Even without notice, dismissal can be upheld where serious misconduct is established, but the employer’s process still tends to be scrutinised for fairness.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the employer labels the conduct “serious misconduct”. Carefully test whether the facts truly establish serious and imminent risk and whether you had a genuine opportunity to respond.

---

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This authority is most useful in submissions involving:
– unfair dismissal in safety-critical roles;
– the evidentiary weight of contemporaneous clinical records;
– the distinction between performance management and serious misconduct where patient safety is implicated;
– the Commission’s independent duty to determine whether misconduct occurred.

Citation Method

As Positive Support:
– Where your matter involves repeated safety-related failures, reliance on contemporaneous records, and risk exposure without actual injury, citing this authority can strengthen the proposition that serious and imminent risk can justify dismissal.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
– If the opposing party cites this authority, you can emphasise uniqueness such as stronger remediation evidence, a genuinely isolated incident, absence of contemporaneous documentation, or clear procedural unfairness causing real disadvantage.

Anonymisation Rule:
– Use professional procedural titles such as Applicant and Respondent when discussing factual parties in narrative form.

---

Conclusion

This decision shows how workplace law treats safety as a legal fact, not a slogan: where repeated basic failures expose others to serious and imminent risk, fairness tends to be determined by evidence, not sympathy. The golden sentence is this: Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law—because true self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Fair Work Commission (Applicant v Respondent [2025] FWC 370), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.