Are employees allowed to have a meltdown?

While there was a valid reason for the termination the FWC found the termination to be unfair due to the employee’s personal circumstances.

One Minute Summary

The employee had a meltdown at a toolbox meeting and was abusive and potentially threatening to another employee. The employee immediately removed himself from the site and went home upset.
The initial management response was supportive, checking on the employee and recommending EAP support.
The employee had been under considerable personal stress and also complained about how the other employee had previously treated him.
On returning to work the employee was issued with a list of allegations as well as a ‘Show Cause’ letter.
While the company acknowledged the employee’s personal situation it decided that fundamentally breaching the Code of Conduct justified termination of employment.

Mr Lewis was a Powerline Worker employed by Essential Energy at its Leeton Depot - not far from Griffiths NSW. He was dismissed in May 2025 after behaving in an aggressive and threatening manner towards a colleague at a toolbox meeting in February 2025. The incident occurred in front of the crew and involved explicit language and potential threats of harm.

The verbal tirade related back to an incident several years earlier where the person who was subjected to the abuse, Mr Meline, had been abusive to Mr Lewis which had not been investigated at the time. Immediately following the incident Mr Lewis removed himself from the workplace and went home quite upset.

Immediately after the incident Mr Meline reported to a senior manager that Mr Lewis had lots of personal issues which were causing him distress particularly in relation to his father’s worsening cancer diagnosis. Mr Meline added he thought Mr Lewis needed a psychiatrist.

The senior manager immediately called Mr Lewis at home asking him how he was, to call him if he needed to talk and offered him the EAP service. Mr Lewis also raised that he was sick of Mr Meline being a bully and that he had been abusive to him. Mr Lewis apologised to Mr Sidebottom stating “I wanted to say one thing but said something else. I don’t know where it came from’

Mr Lewis then organized and attended the first of several EAP counselling sessions.

When Mr Lewis returned to work a week later, he apologised to the crew and to Mr Meline. He said he was sorry and ashamed of his behaviour. The crew accepted his apology. Thereafter he worked as normal for the next 6 weeks. Mr Meline and Mr Lewis worked together without incident several times during that time.

On the same day he returned to work he received a letter from a senior manager which outlined allegations of serious misconduct including that he had breached the Code of Conduct. It required his response.

In his response (11 March) Mr Lewis did not deny the allegations but outlined his Father’s cancer diagnosis becoming substantially worse, his Aunt who was very sick in palliative care at the time of the incident as well as outlining Mr Meline’s ‘persistent and aggressive behaviour’ toward him which had created a hostile work environment.

On 3 April Mr Lewis received a Show Cause letter indicating:

The allegations had been substantiated.
Acknowledging Mr Lewis had expressed deep regret and remorse and provided context to his actions including relationship with Mr Meline and personal issues that were causing him significant stress.
Expressed concern that Mr Lewis had attended work to undertake high-risk work aware he was experiencing significant stress and that this had not been mentioned to his Supervisor.
That a preliminary view of the appropriate disciplinary outcome for the outburst was termination of employment.

In his Show Cause response Mr Lewis again outlined the personal stress in more detail and that after receiving counselling and treatment from his GP, he was now in a better place. He also outlined how he would respond by removing himself from a situation if he was to have another outburst.

On 14 May Mr Lewis was terminated based on the fact he had breached the Code of Conduct. This followed a Dismissal Recommendation which acknowledged all Mr Lewis special circumstances, Mr Meline’s treatment of him and that he had apologised. The Dismissal Recommendation also recommended that he receive ongoing EAP support for 6 months following his termination.

Fair Work Commission

Deputy President Wright found Mr Lewis’s conduct had breached the Code of Conduct and was a valid reason for termination. She also acknowledged that the incident was a one off and that there was no evidence of similar behaviour by Mr Lewis over his pervious 16 years of service.

Thereafter the Deputy President took into account other relevant matters. These included:

The personal and economic impact of the termination on Mr Lewis.
The employees long and satisfactory work performance.
The impact on Mr Lewis of the worsening cancer diagnosis of Mr Lewis Father and his Aunt entering Palliative care at the time.
The workplace had at times tolerated behaviours that beached the Code of Conduct.
Mr Lewis’ remorse was genuine, and he accepted it caused distress to Mr Meline and others. He took responsibility for that distress.
That it was unlikely that the conduct would reoccur given that it was uncharacteristic and that Mr Lewis was seeking treatment for his mental health issues.

The Deputy President addressed what appeared to be a key aspect of Essential Energy’s defence:

‘In Mr Lewis’ case, Essential Energy became fixated with Mr Lewis’s actions in attending work in a distressed state and appeared incapable of moving past this and accepting that Mr Lewis’ was likely to be a ‘one-off’ reaction to very challenging personal circumstances’

In respect to expectations on employers taking into account an employee’s personal circumstances the Deputy President made the following comments in the decision:

‘In my view, a reasonable employer faced with a long serving employee engaging in poor behaviour which was uncharacteristic of that employee would ordinarily question whether there were any underlying issues or surrounding circumstances which explained the behaviour. In the case of an employee who has close family members suffering from serious health issues, I would expect a reasonable employer to apply a common sense approach and be able to draw a connection between the employee’s personal circumstances and their uncharacteristic poor behaviour and treat this as a significant mitigating factor, even if medical evidence explaining the poor behaviour was not available. Essential Energy’s failure to do so is a matter which weighs in favour of finding the dismissal was unfair. ‘

The Deputy President found the dismissal to be unfair and ordered reinstatement. As Mr Lewis had breached the Code of Conduct he was to be paid 80% of his normal wages from the time of dismissal to reinstatement – less any other earnings during that time.

Commentary

It would appear that the answer to the question ‘are employees allowed to have a meltdown?’ is ‘Yes’. Employers cannot look at a meltdown in isolation and must examine the totality of the situation. This would include both internal factors (i.e. how the employee had been treated) as well as the employee’s personal situation. Be careful when determining or making a judgement as to whether the employee’s response was ‘reasonable’ in relation to such factors.

Where an employee breaches a Code of Conduct or policy documents care should be taken not to ignore a range of potential factors around that breach.

In respect to the application of the Code of Conduct there appeared to be an inconsistent application by management in relation to different circumstances with some referring to abusive type language as workplace ‘banter’.

Some of Essential Energy’s management took a lenient approach (calling Mr Lewis at home to check on his welfare and offering EAP) while others took a harsher view focussed only on whether the Code of Conduct had been breached.

Inside some organisations group think can lead to some interesting decisions. Where a senior manager with a strong personality wants to terminate someone who is there to challenge that decision. Working with a large unionised client some years ago, the CEO told me that he was the only person who could authorise a termination and I was the only person who could (and should) veto that decision – if it was in best interests of the organisation to do so.

Employers wish to discuss a disciplinary scenario or potential termination should seek professional advice. Please contact Hunter Employee Relations.

Kind Regards

Michael Schmidt

M 0438 129 728

[email protected]

www.hunteremployeerelations.com.au