Wake-up Call for Employers: "Sleeping" Worker Reinstated by FWC

The recent decision by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in Kylie Wykes v Wilmar Sugar Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1811 serves as a crucial reminder for employers about procedural fairness, accurate documentation, and the necessity to provide employees a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations.

Case Summary:

Kylie Wykes, a pan boiler at Plane Creek sugar mill operated by Wilmar Sugar in Sarina, central Queensland, was accused of sleeping on the job following complaints from two colleagues. Upon learning of these allegations, Wykes became severely distressed, claiming the accusations were false and amounted to workplace bullying.

Wake-up Call for Employers: "Sleeping" Worker Reinstated by FWC

Due to her emotional state, the operations coordinator suggested she take a short break instead of leaving immediately. Wykes agreed initially but subsequently decided to leave work, notifying her coordinator via text message from the car park before departing.

The following day, Wilmar Sugar convened a meeting without Wykes present, deciding to terminate her employment. They cited a previous warning from 2023 for allegedly sleeping on duty, further unspecified complaints, and accused her of leaving work without proper notification, impacting production and safety.

Despite being informed of her medical leave (supported by a doctor's certificate), Wilmar Sugar management insisted on an early morning meeting which Wykes was unable to attend, leading to her dismissal via email.

Findings of the FWC:

Deputy President Terri Butler conducted a detailed review and highlighted significant issues with Wilmar Sugar's handling of the matter:

1. Insufficient Evidence:

   • Wilmar Sugar failed to present adequate evidence of Wykes sleeping during her shift.

   • Key witnesses, including the two complainants, were not called to testify.

   • Senior personnel on-site confirmed Wykes had been awake.

2. Procedural Fairness:

   • The decision to dismiss Wykes was effectively made without providing her any meaningful opportunity to respond to allegations.

   • The early morning dismissal meeting, scheduled during Wykes' certified medical leave, was deemed unreasonable.

3. Misrepresentation of Facts:

   • Contrary to the dismissal letter, Wykes had properly notified her supervisor of her intent to leave before departing, not afterward.

4. Legitimacy of Direction:

   • The request for Wykes to remain on-site in a highly distressed emotional state was found to be unreasonable. Deputy President Butler noted that such insistence would likely not have occurred had the issue been physical rather than emotional.

5. Unfair Dismissal:

   • Wilmar Sugar’s reasons for dismissal, including assertions of serious misconduct, were rejected due to procedural unfairness, lack of evidence, and the absence of valid reasons.

     
     

Outcome and Implications:

The FWC ruled the dismissal unfair, ordering Wilmar Sugar to reinstate Wykes with continuity of service and reimbursement of lost pay.

Lessons for Employers:

• Procedural Fairness: Always provide employees with a genuine opportunity to respond to allegations before deciding on disciplinary action or dismissal.

• Evidence and Documentation: Maintain clear and detailed documentation of incidents, including witness statements and confirmations, before making serious allegations against employees.

• Understanding Employee Rights: Recognize and respect employee rights regarding medical and personal leave, and handle sensitive situations, particularly those involving mental health and emotional distress, with care and understanding.

• Reasonable Directions: Ensure directions given to employees, especially those in distress, are reasonable, lawful, and considerate of their immediate circumstances.

This case serves as a stark reminder to employers that adhering to proper disciplinary processes and respecting employee rights is not just a legal obligation but a critical aspect of fair and effective workplace management.

Kylie Wykes v Wilmar Sugar Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1811 (3 July 2025)

FULL DECISION

2025fwc1811.pdf

Download PDF • 332KB