A power worker has won his job back under a FWC ruling, despite his abusive of another employee. His employer had not given enough weight to underlying issues contributing to a one-off outburst.  

The 46-year-old man had been employed for 16 years by the operator of a large electricity network as a powerline worker based at the company’s depot in the Riverina region of New South Wales. 

The worker had an ‘interesting’ relationship with his leading hand – over the seven years they’d worked together, there had been a number of instances of mutual irritation, verbal abuse and complaints about each other. 

On 20 February 2025 during a toolbox talk at the depot, an altercation took place in relation to picking up a work truck. The worker was angered by a comment made by the leading hand, and overreacted with words to the effect of, ‘You treated me horrible when you were my leading hand. You’re a big man hiding behind the orange shirt. If we were outside, you wouldn’t be so tough, you fucking dog…he needs a punch in the head’. The worker said that he did not intend to say this, but his emotions overwhelmed him and he lost control. 

Later the same day he was given a letter outlining allegations of serious misconduct and stating that if substantiated, he may have breached the organisation’s Code of Conduct, which required workers to treat each other with respect and avoid bullying, intimidation and harassment. 

He later said that the moment he was abusive towards the leading hand, he realised that it was wrong, and he removed himself from the room while crying. 

He was subsequently told his behaviour had ‘horrified’ his work colleagues and risked their safety. He responded with remorse to the ‘Show cause’ letter, and apologised to all concerned. Nevertheless, his employment was terminated.  

The worker believed that at the time of his outburst he was suffering from an anxiety attack due to his difficult personal circumstances – his wife was experiencing a period of instability in her employment, close family members were battling with serious medical issues and it was challenging for him to meet his ongoing financial commitments. 

He applied to the Fair Work Commission, alleging that he’d been unfairly dismissed. 

 

In the Commission 

In considering the merits of the application, Deputy President Judith Wright was required to take into account whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal, together with other matters including whether the person was notified of that reason, given an opportunity to respond and allowed to have a support person present at relevant discussions, as well as the possible impact of organisational matters such as the size of the enterprise and availability of HR advice. 

Deputy President Wright considered that the conduct the worker admitted to, namely calling the leading hand a ‘fucking dog’ and saying ‘he needs a punch in the head’, was a breach of the Code of Conduct and a valid reason for the dismissal. 

She also found that the worker was notified of the reason for dismissal, given a chance to respond, and not unreasonably refused a support person. 

However, the Deputy President took the view that the aggressive behaviour was a ‘one-off’ incident – that it was ‘out of character and not premeditated’. 

The employer maintained that the worker should have been aware of how stressed he was, and that coming to work in that state could have serious implications for himself, his colleagues and the public. 

The Deputy President did not accept this argument, noting that there was no evidence the worker was conscious of his own mental health struggles at the time, and therefore not able to make a sensible decision to stay home. 

When considering the appropriate response to the worker's conduct, the employer had not given sufficient weight to his difficult personal circumstances at the time of the incident, she said. 

Moreover, she observed that the workplace environment was one in which personal relationships tended to blur professional boundaries, resulting in ‘non-professional behaviour … being tolerated by management’. Inappropriate conduct had been ignored, there was a reluctance to complain, and verbal abuse had been dismissed as ‘banter’. The employer had failed to consider that these factors may have contributed to the worker’s behaviour. 

Based on these findings, together with the worker's remorse, his long and satisfactory period of service and the unlikelihood of the misconduct recurring, she concluded that his sacking was harsh and unreasonable, and he was entitled to be compensated and reinstated in his position. 

Deputy President Wright made orders to maintain the worker’s continuity of employment and period of continuous service. In respect of lost remuneration however, she reduced the amount of compensation payable by 20 percent, in recognition that the worker had breached the Code of Conduct with his abusive, threatening behaviour.  

She ordered that he be reinstated, and paid 80% of the wages he’d lost since the dismissal. 

 

What it means for employers 

An employer faced with a long serving employee engaging in uncharacteristically poor behaviour should question whether any underlying issues or surrounding circumstances might explain the behaviour, and if so, treat this as a significant mitigating factor. 

 

Read the decision 

Lewis v Essential Energy [2026] FWC 252 (30 January 2026)