Alcohol Consumption Not Enough to Justify Unfair Dismissal

Friday 29 January 2016 @ 10.57 a.m. | Industrial Law

Fair Work Commissioner Bruce Williams has ruled that an employee’s termination for pushing a fully-clothed colleague into a swimming pool was fair. The employee had harangued a colleague and aggressively poked and pushed him in the chest before ultimately pushing him into a swimming pool during a work Christmas party.

Background

Both men were employees of Future Engineering and Communication Pty Ltd and had attended the work Christmas party organised by the company. The company supplied unlimited free alcohol and the sacked employee had become intoxicated and aggressive. He had started a physical fight with his general manager after being prompted to go home. Nevertheless, the employee claimed to be heavily intoxicated and had no recollection of the events occurring on the night. He blamed the employer for supplying him with unlimited alcohol.

Fair Work Ruling

Commissioner Williams commented that “in all the circumstances it is not surprising” that the employee was sacked. He found that:

"In some circumstances an employer that provides alcohol at a work function and takes no steps to ensure it is consumed responsibly may be culpable for events attributable to the consumption of alcohol, such as a drunken employee being injured falling down stairs...[however,] employees who drink will also be held responsible for their own actions".

The Commissioner sternly ruled that while intoxication may explain bad behaviour, it cannot be accepted as an excuse for that misbehaviour. The Commissioner insisted that alcohol consumption was a choice and the employee should have known that that choice came with consequences.

Inconsistency

The ruling by the Commission complicates an earlier ruling in a similar case. The Fair Work Commission had ruled in that decision that an employer is not a position to insist on standards of conduct at functions if the employer serves unlimited alcohol. The Commission in that instant held that an employee who had sexually harassed work colleagues and used explicit language in an aggressive manner to address his employer had been unfairly dismissed.

It is interesting to note that Commissioner Williams had in the more recent case commented that an employer may nevertheless be held responsible for events attributed to the consumption of alcohol such as injuries resulting from intoxication. However, he drew the line at physical violence in a ruling that contradicts the earlier ruling. 

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Sources:

Related Articles: