Horseplay, Skylarking and Practical Jokes - a valid reason for dismissal

One Minute Summary

The actions by a Supervisor in pressing the emergency stop button leaving two Engineering Apprentices stranded a top an EWP were a serious safety breach.
The Fair Work Commission determined the actions fell into the category of Horseplay Skylarking and Practical Jokes in a safety critical environment.
Other reasons, which also formed part of the reason for termination, were deemed worthy of a warning but not termination. Only the EWP incident provided a valid reason for termination.
The employee’s response to the allegations shifted between the show cause process, the internal appeal and his testimony before the Commission.

A Jetstar supervisor challenged his termination for safety breaches and an aggressive attitude towards Engineering Apprentices. Mr Mcrae was employed by Jetstar in January 2023 and terminated in July 2025 following a show cause process and internal appeal.

On employment he signed an employment contract which imposed an obligation on him to familiarise himself with the airline’s policies and procedures. The contract also stated that where the policies and procedures placed obligations on him, he was required to comply with them. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action including dismissal.

There were a number of allegations against Mr Mcrae which related to safety as well as complaints about his attitude particularly towards Engineering Apprentices. In this ER Update we’ll focus on two key allegations and the Fair Work Commission discussion around them.

The first related to leaving two Engineering Apprentices stranded on an Elevated Work Platform (EWP) while working on a 787. Mr Mcrae had pushed the emergency stop button and walked away to lunch. The Apprentices used a mobile phone to call for assistance to allow the EWP to descend. This could not be done from their control panel at the top of the EWP.

The second incident related to a number of conversations with one of the Engineering Apprentices including making the following statements

‘you are all pussies now, it’s ridiculous, back when I was an apprentice, we used to cop all sorts of abuse’ (in response to one of the Apprentices stating he would complain to HR);
‘were you hit much as a kid?’ and
‘Oi Jackson, oi, take it to the carpark, be a man‘ to infer to fight after the Apprentice started to be more assertive in response to Mr Mcrae’s regular jabs towards him.

In response to a complaint an investigation was held. The investigation concluded the allegations had been substantiated. After a show cause letter Mr Mcrae was informed he would be terminated. He exercised the right to an internal appeal process while simultaneously lodging his unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission. The internal appeals process confirmed the termination decision.

The Fair Work Commission proceedings

During the unfair dismissal proceedings, the Applicant made up an elaborate story about having to push the EWP Emergency Stop button to criticise the Apprentice’s work and then forgot to restart it. He stated he pushed the button to stop the EWP noise so he could communicate with the Apprentices at the top of the platform. This was denied by both Apprentices, and it was confirmed by a senior engineer that it was not required to shut down an EWP to communicate with those at the top due to noise.

Mr Mcrae disputed the Apprentices version of events stating they had been coerced into complaining and testifying against him.

In response Deputy President Clancy stated:

‘I am satisfied the Applicant acted in breach of the Cardinal Rules by recklessly engaging in ‘horseplay, skylarking or practical jokes’ in pressing the emergency stop button the EWP….this constitutes a valid reason for dismissal.” And “Mr Garret and Mr Singh were working as ‘safety-critical’ – with numerous hazards….requiring strict adherence to workplace health and safety policies and procedures’.

In relation to the comments mentioned above Mr Mcrae responded with denial and an assertion that the comments he made were taken out of context. In response the DP stated “I consider them bizarre, inane and not at all amusing.’

The Deputy President also noted the shifting positions by Mr Mcrae in his evidence. In his initial response to the Show Cause letter, he acknowledged the impact of his actions and sincerely apologised. In the internal appeal documentation, he focusses on ‘the abundance of outrageous allegations, which in my opinion are 80% lies’. During the hearing he took another tact - that Mr Garrett had made up an elaborate story to incriminate him and that ‘Mr Garrett had been prevailed upon to pursue a complaint against him and then testify.’

In coming to a conclusion the DP stated:

‘…my overwhelming impression is that for reasons best known to himself, the Applicant felt an impulse to repeatedly inject himself into Mr Garrett’s orbit and when doing so, came across as overbearing and antagonistic. The Applicant seems to have held the firm view that as the more senior employee it was his prerogative and right to ride Mr Garrett hard.’

The Deputy President stated, “I am satisfied that the actions of the Applicant in relation to the EWP constitute a valid reason for termination’. The unfair dismissal application was dismissed.

Commentary

The DP is quite specific about which was the valid reason for the termination – the incident with the EWP. In relation to the other mentioned incidents the DP made comments that they would not justify a valid reason for termination but they ‘warranted a sanction that fell just short of dismissal’ … and a clear message that if behaviours did not change they would likely be terminated.

Employers need to keep an eye on managers who may take a more ‘traditional’ view of employee relations. Some may decide that because their entry into the workforce was more harsh that they can now replicate those same experiences to younger employees that report to them. Often such behaviours are not on public view – they are too clever for that. They hold the belief that if the younger employee ever complained the employer would prefer their version of events.

At the start of the article, I included the following paragraph as a summary from the decision:

To be able to rely in policies and procedures employers must show the employee was aware of them and that they were also aware of the repercussions of a breach. Mr Mcrae was employed for a relatively short time. Employers must refresh key policies and procedures with employees on a regular basis to be able to rely on them.

If you require assistance with potential termination scenarios or ensuring employment contracts are comprehensive please contact myself for assistance.

Kind Regards

Michael Schmidt

M 0438 129 728

[email protected]

www.hunteremployeerelations.com.au