Safety, Warnings, and Unfair Dismissal: What the Roy Hill Decision Tells Workers in the Fox v Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 6

The Fair Work Commission’s recent decision in Fox v Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 6 provides an important reminder of how seriously workplace safety breaches are treated in unfair dismissal proceedings—particularly where a worker is already on a final warning and performance improvement plan.

While the case arises from a mining environment, its implications extend well beyond heavy industry. At its core, the decision illustrates how repeated safety non-compliance, even where the employee disputes the level of risk, can amount to a valid reason for dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009.

Background to the Case

Mr Jeffray Fox was employed by Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd as a Maintainer Fitter at its Western Australian mining operations. His employment was terminated following two safety-related incidents occurring within a four-month period.

The first incident, in January 2025, involved Mr Fox commencing work on an oil rack without completing a formal risk assessment (such as a Job Hazard Analysis) and without properly isolating a valve. This resulted in a significant oil spill. Mr Fox admitted the conduct and was issued with a first and final written warning, placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and required to undertake refresher safety training.

The second incident occurred in April 2025. Mr Fox was assigned to replace a pump. While he completed the electrical isolation, he did not sign onto the JHA for the task and did not isolate two mechanical valves controlling water flow. When challenged by his supervisor, Mr Fox maintained that the additional isolations were unnecessary and that there was no stored energy risk.

Following a show cause process, Roy Hill terminated his employment. Mr Fox subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application.

The Legal Framework Applied

The Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, applying the criteria in section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Commissioner Lim structured the decision around the statutory factors, with particular focus on:

• whether there was a valid reason related to conduct (s 387(a));

• whether Mr Fox was notified of the reason and given an opportunity to respond (ss 387(b) and (c)); and

• whether there were prior warnings relevant to the dismissal (s 387(e)).

Valid Reason and Safety Breaches

A central issue was whether Roy Hill had a valid reason to dismiss Mr Fox.

The Commission adopted the well-established definition that a valid reason must be “sound, defensible or well-founded”, and not “capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced”, drawing directly from Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371.

In assessing misconduct, the Commission reaffirmed that:

• it must be satisfied the conduct actually occurred (King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd Print S4213); and

• findings are made on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, consistent with Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 and Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836.

Findings on the Two Incidents

First Incident

The January oil spill was not seriously disputed. Mr Fox conceded that he had not completed a risk assessment or properly isolated the system. The Commission found this to be a clear safety breach, particularly given his experience and the inherent risks of mining work.

Importantly, the Commission rejected arguments that procedural shortcomings in the investigation undermined the warning. The facts were straightforward, admitted, and Mr Fox had the opportunity to raise mitigating factors during the show cause process.

Safety, Warnings, and Unfair Dismissal: What the Roy Hill Decision Tells Workers in the Fox v Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 6

Second Incident

The April incident was more contested. Notably, Roy Hill failed to produce its isolation and tagging procedure or the relevant JHA, limiting the Commission’s ability to determine whether the failure to isolate mechanical valves alone constituted a breach.

However, the Commission identified a critical and independent issue: Mr Fox failed to complete or sign onto the JHA at all, despite being on a PIP that expressly required strict compliance with risk assessment processes.

Commissioner Lim described this failure as “the most alarming aspect” of the second incident, particularly given the recent warning, retraining, and heightened safety focus following the January event.

When viewed cumulatively, the Commission accepted that Roy Hill had lost confidence in Mr Fox’s ability to safely perform high-risk work, amounting to a valid reason for dismissal.

Procedural Fairness Considered

The Commission also addressed procedural fairness.

Consistent with Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137, the Commission confirmed that an employee must be notified of the reason for dismissal and given a real opportunity to respond.

Despite Mr Fox’s arguments that he was denied investigation materials, the Commission found that he:

• was clearly informed of the reason for dismissal;

• provided extensive written responses; and

• participated in a show cause meeting.

Accordingly, the notification and response requirements were satisfied.

Outcome

After weighing all section 387 factors, the Commission concluded that:

• sections 387(a), (b), (c) and (e) weighed against a finding of unfairness; and

• the remaining considerations were neutral.

The application was dismissed, and the termination upheld as not unfair.

Key Takeaways for Workers and Unions

This decision carries several important lessons:

1. Safety obligations are non-negotiable, particularly in high-risk industries. Personal disagreement about risk does not override employer safety systems.

2. Final warnings and PIPs matter. Subsequent breaches—even if different in nature—will be assessed in light of prior conduct.

3. Failure to follow process, such as completing risk assessments, can be decisive even where the underlying task appears low risk.

4. Employers are not required to prove perfect investigations, only that findings are reasonable, evidence-based, and procedurally fair.

For workers, delegates, and advocates, the case reinforces the importance of treating safety documentation and procedures as substantive obligations—not mere paperwork.

MYUNION will continue to report on significant Fair Work Commission decisions that affect workers’ rights, job security, and safety at work.