When a residential village cleaner woke up the morning after a Christmas pool party with wet board shorts and no clear memory of the night before, he could hardly have imagined the soggy evidence would ultimately win him nearly $10,000 in compensation.
The cleaner, employed by accommodation provider Sirrom Co at a Central Queensland mining village, was summarily dismissed following allegations he had swum naked in the pool, breached the site’s 10pm curfew and consumed alcohol at the end-of-year gathering. Sirrom described the conduct as “inappropriate, unsafe and inconsistent with expected standards in a shared accommodation environment”.
The evidence that swung the case
At a show-cause meeting, the worker was candid about the limits of his recall. “I was too drunk to remember. I wish I could remember,” he told his employer. Yet despite his acknowledged intoxication, he maintained one consistent detail throughout: he had been wearing underwear when he entered the pool, a claim supported by the fact he woke in wet board shorts.
Fair Work Commissioner Alana Matheson found that account persuasive. While acknowledging the worker was “not a particularly credible witness” given his selective memory, she found Sirrom’s evidentiary case to be poor. No witness had visually confirmed nudity. One observer heard cheering and comments from nearby guests, but did not see the alleged conduct directly.
Matheson also rejected the curfew allegation, noting that site rules referred only to a ban on excessive noise between 10pm and 4.30am, with no explicit prohibition on drinking after that hour.
A costly lesson for employers
The ruling is a timely reminder for cleaning and facilities businesses that summary dismissal requires substantiated evidence, particularly where conduct occurs outside work hours in a shared living environment. Matheson upheld the unfair dismissal application and ordered Sirrom to pay the worker $9543 in compensation for lost wages.
The message to operators managing live-in workforces is clear: thorough investigation and reliable evidence gathering must underpin any disciplinary process or the bill for getting it wrong lands squarely with the employer.
A version of this story first appeared in HR Leader.
