Australian dock worker wins unfair dismissal case, reinstated at Qube Ports

A veteran Melbourne dock worker has won his unfair dismissal case, with the Fair Work Commission ordering Qube Ports to reinstate him and pay back remuneration after finding the termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The ruling concluded that while there was a case for discipline based on past conduct, the company did not follow proper processes and the severity of the punishment outweighed the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.

Robert Smith, 62, had worked for logistics giant Qube Ports in Melbourne since 2009. He was dismissed on January 15, 2025, amid a string of allegations levied by management. Qube said Smith had engaged in misconduct including showing male co-workers bikini-clad photos of female colleagues, and, in a separate incident, telling one staff member that he had spat and “put his c***” in a Subway sandwich he was eating in the smoko room. The company also accused him of hurling derogatory terms at colleagues, describing one as a “useless piece of s***” and a “condescending c***.”

The Maritime Union of Australia, which represented Smith, argued that while misconduct had occurred, it did not warrant the termination, particularly given the company’s prior actions. Smith had already received a final written warning in March 2024 after showing Facebook photos of bikini-clad female colleagues in a hot tub to other staff members, a moment management acknowledged as inappropriate for the workplace. The FWC noted that there was a valid basis for dismissal arising from the Facebook incident, but Smith had already been issued a final warning, and the overall disciplinary response was disproportionate given his long service and age.

Commissioner Scott Connolly found that although Smith’s conduct included elements of inappropriate workplace behavior, the employer failed to establish that terminating his employment was warranted in the circumstances. The commissioner observed that Smith admitted to scrolling through images of co-workers and acknowledged that his conversations about colleagues were not appropriate, and he accepted he should not have used his phone to share such material during shifts. Yet, Connolly said the evidence did not convincingly show that Smith’s actions met the level of conduct that would justify dismissal, particularly given the absence of direct corroboration for the Subway incident and the broader context of ongoing issues in the workplace.

The FWC’s decision highlighted procedural fairness concerns that weighed against the company. It found that Smith did not receive timely information about the specific reasons for his dismissal, was not given a real opportunity to respond to the alleged offenses, and may have been treated differently from other staff in similar circumstances. In addition, the commission noted that Qube’s disciplinary process had not consistently applied established procedures, which undermined the integrity of the termination.

In upholding the union’s argument, Commissioner Connolly emphasized that Smith had shown remorse for his behavior and that age and length of service should be considered as mitigating factors. He stated that while Smith’s actions were not excused, they did not justify the loss of a longstanding role for a worker who contributed to the operation for more than a decade. The decision ordered Qube Ports to reinstate Smith to his former position and to compensate him for lost wages that accrued during the period of dismissal, overturning the initial decision to terminate his employment.

Qube Ports had argued that the dismissal was warranted by multiple misconduct incidents and that the employee had been given due process, including a formal disciplinary process. The company said it would examine the decision and consider its options in light of the commission’s ruling. The ruling also underscored the need for clear, consistent disciplinary standards and better communication with employees facing disciplinary measures, particularly for longtime staff who may be affected by a broader culture or workplace dynamics.

The case, heard under the Fair Work Commission framework, illustrates the ongoing tension between enforcing workplace conduct policies and ensuring procedural fairness in high-stakes personnel decisions. For Qube Ports, the ruling could influence how discipline is handled for similar incidents moving forward, including how evidence is gathered, how warnings are applied, and how employees are informed of the reasons for discipline. For workers, it underscores the importance of maintaining professional standards in shared spaces and of contesting decisions that may disproportionately impact long-serving employees.

The decision also reflects broader considerations in the logistics and port-services sector, where workforce conduct and safety are central to operations. While the commission did not exonerate Smith entirely, it balanced the gravity of reported misconduct against the circumstances surrounding his long service, age and the employer’s procedural handling. The reinstatement and backpay remedy aim to restore Smith’s employment status while signaling to employers the necessity of fair processes, consistency in disciplinary actions, and careful assessment of disciplinary outcomes to avoid unduly harsh consequences for veteran workers. The case continues to be watched by unions and employers alike as it touches on how misconduct and procedural fairness intersect with the rights of workers in essential services.