Fair Work Commission validates termination following dangerous driving episodes captured on camera

A truck driver’s unfair dismissal claim has been rejected after video evidence and public complaints confirmed two serious driving violations within days of each other.

The Fair Work Commission ruled that Load & Go Pty Ltd had valid grounds to terminate the worker in July, following dangerous conduct that nearly forced another vehicle into a motorway wall during the second incident.

Deputy President Bryce Cross emphasized that the CCTV recordings provided irrefutable evidence of the incidents, and that the driver’s actions while operating the truck posed substantial risks to the company’s standing.

Two incidents in four days lead to immediate termination

The first violation occurred when the driver crossed double unbroken lines to pass another vehicle, despite limited visibility and an approaching curve. After receiving a public complaint, the employer reviewed footage and issued a first and final written warning on July 10, noting the behavior could have resulted in serious injury or death.

Just four days later, on July 14, the company received another complaint alleging the worker dangerously merged in front of a car within the M4 tunnel in Sydney, nearly pinning it against the tunnel wall.

After examining both dashboard and side-camera recordings, Load & Go determined the conduct violated its behavioral standards and traffic regulations while creating immediate risks to its reputation and contractual commitments. The worker was dismissed for serious misconduct that same day.

Worker’s defense unsuccessful

During the unfair dismissal proceedings, the worker argued that no one was injured and characterized the tunnel incident as an accidental lane change for which he apologized.

He acknowledged under questioning that his actions in the second incident were illegal and accepted full responsibility. However, he maintained the dismissal was unjust because he wasn’t given adequate opportunity to respond, lacked access to a support person, was dealing with mental health challenges, and was doing his best after a lengthy shift.

The employer countered that the driver engaged in hazardous behavior twice within four days, with the second occurrence happening after receiving a final warning. Both incidents were documented through camera footage and posed genuine threats to public safety and client relationships.

Commission finds dismissal valid and fair

Deputy President Cross concluded the misconduct occurred as alleged, supported by public witness reports and video evidence. He noted the truck displayed both the employer’s branding and its client’s signage, meaning the conduct “created a serious and imminent risk to the reputation, viability and profitability” of the business.

Regarding procedural fairness, the Commissioner found the worker hadn’t requested a support person, and the employer hadn’t unreasonably refused one. The termination letter detailed the specific conduct and its risk implications, giving the worker clear understanding of the concerns following his July 11 warning and full opportunity to respond at the July 14 meeting.

“The [worker] candidly accepts cutting in when changing lanes and emphasises that no one was hurt,” Deputy President Cross stated. “However, for heavy vehicle operations, near-miss events of this kind are significant and need not eventuate in injury to amount to serious safety breaches, particularly post-warning and with client repercussions.”

The Commission dismissed the application, accepting there was a sound, defensible and well-founded reason for the termination related to both conduct and safety concerns.