Rare order for reinstatement of employment in unfair dismissal

This is a reasonably rare instance of the Fair Work Commission ordering reinstatement of employment in an unfair dismissal case.

“Application for relief from unfair dismissal – no valid reason for dismissal – harshness- procedural fairness deficiencies- dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable – reinstatement ordered.

[1]

Mr. Colin Petrie (Mr. Petrie/Applicant) was engaged by Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd (Amazon/Respondent) to work as a full-time Technician at the Amazon Fulfillment Centre at Kemp’s Creek. He commenced work with the Respondent on 20 September 2021. Mr Petrie was dismissed on 25 September 2025 for conduct including multiple instances of inappropriate commentary on the Respondent’s instant messaging service (Slack) directed towards a Senior Technician over the course of a six day period and dishonestly and falsely recording the completion of a preventative maintenance task without having completed that work and emailing confidential information such as training material, policies and part pricing, shift information and employee and organisational information to his personal email address, and in one case, that of his union representative.

[2]

On 16 October 2025, Mr. Petrie made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for a remedy, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The Applicant seeks reinstatement to his former position. In the alternative, the Applicant seeks an order for compensation.

[3]

For the reasons that follow, I find that there was not a valid reason for the dismissal and that it was otherwise harsh, unjust and/or unreasonable and order Mr. Petrie’s reinstatement.

Background, Evidence and Factual Findings

[4]

Mr. Petrie gave evidence on his own behalf and relied upon various documents including various Slack messages and excerpts from LinkedIn of some of his Amazon colleagues.

[5]

Mr. Miller, Mr Trujillo, Mr Bulurda, Mr Kapote and Ms Qayyum gave evidence for the Respondent. Statements were tendered on behalf of all of these witnesses including a confidential exhibit annexed to the statement of Mr Miller.

[2026] FWC 2346

DECISION

[2026] FWC 2346

[6]

The Respondent also tendered various documents including policies, work orders, systems excerpts, photographs, a video of the Respondent’s SLAM machine and a Safework Australia Code of Practice.

Submissions

[7]

Mr. Petrie filed submissions on 24 December 2025 and submissions in reply on 29 January 2026. The Respondent filed its submissions on 21 January 2026.

[8]

Following the substantive hearing on 9 and 10 February 2026, the parties returned for closing oral submissions on 12 March 2026.

The Hearing and Legal Representation

[9]

There being contested facts involved, the Commission is obliged by s.397 of the Act to conduct a conference or hold a hearing.

[10]

After considering the views of Mr. Petrie and the Respondent and whether a hearing or a determinative conference would be the most effective and efficient way to resolve the matter, I considered it appropriate to hold a hearing for the matter (per s.399 of the Act).

Representation and conduct of hearing

[11]

Mr. Petrie and Amazon both sought to be represented before the Commission by a lawyer.

[12]

Relevantly, section 596(1) of the Act provides that a party may be represented in a matter before the Commission by a lawyer or paid agent only with the permission of the Commission.

[13]

Section 596(2) provides that the Commission may grant permission for a person to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent in a matter before the Commission only if:

(a)

it would enable the matter to be deal with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter; or

(b)

it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented because the person is unable to represent himself, herself or itself effectively; or

(c)

it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented taking into account fairness between the person and other persons in the same matter.

[14]

The decision to grant permission is not merely a procedural step but one which requires consideration in accordance with s.596 of the Act.1 The decision to grant permission is a two-step process. First it must be determined whether one of the requirements in s.596(2) have been met. Secondly, if the requirement has been met, it is a discretionary decision as to whether permission is granted.2

[2026] FWC 2346

[15]

On the question of representation, both parties submitted that permission to be represented ought to be granted on the following bases:

(a)

It would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently given the matter’s complexity; and

(b)

It would be fair to grant permission to be represented in circumstances where the other party was also represented.

[16]

Having considered the submissions, I formed a view that this matter does have significant factual and legal complexity for the reasons advanced by the parties. I determined that allowing the parties to be represented by a lawyer would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently taking into account the complexity of the matter and decided to exercise my discretion to grant permission for Mr. Petrie and Amazon to be represented.

Factual Background

[17]

The factual background to the matter can be summarised as follows.

[18]

The Applicant is 54 years old and commenced with Amazon in September 2021 as a Level 3 Technician. His employment is governed by, amongst other things, a contract of employment dated 7 September 2021. He has extensive experience working as a Maintenance Technician since completing his apprenticeship in 1991.

[19]

During his employment he predominately worked in Team 2 in the BWU2 Fulfilment Centre (which is Amazon’s largest fulfilment centre in Australia), before transferring to Team 3 on 14 April 2025. In Team 3, he worked with approximately eleven other employees including two Level 4 supervisors, Mr Trujillo and Mr Kapote. His manager was Mr Miller, a Reliability Maintenance Engineering (RME) Area Manager.

Duties and Work Allocation

[20]

Mr Petrie’s duties included:

•

Attending to breakdowns in machinery;

•

Utilising equipment by making technical changes and continuance maintenance to improve the risk of stoppages, and to improve site performance;

•

Carrying out planned and reactive maintenance on equipment;

•

Conducting preventative maintenance;

•

Inspecting machinery for faults;

•

Lock Out Tag Out (LOTO);

•

Supporting Senior Maintenance Technicians;

•

Reading electrical and mechanical drawings;

•

Conducting conveyor maintenance;

•

Repairing motor controllers and inverters; and

•

Adhering to health and safety standards.

[2026] FWC 2346

[21]

Technicians are required to complete their allocated planned maintenance work, and to respond to any reactive issues they are allocated during the shift. Work is allocated by L4 Technicians who are the shift leaders/supervisors, but not managers, of Technicians such as Mr Petrie. In addition, Technicians are also expected to constantly look out for issues that require response during the course of the shift, and digitally complete their workorder checklists confirming they have completed all of their planned work for that shift, and digitally log all reactive work they have done during the shift, on the APM system.

[22]

In late 2024, Mr Petrie was chosen to train newly hired employees and junior staff. From this time on he was also referred to as a Reliability Maintenance Engineer Trainer.

[23]

As part of his role Mr Petrie was required to complete work orders and tickets and had a target and limit of eleven hours work per shift.

[24]

The process of work allocation is as follows:

•

Prior to each shift, the L4 SRME receives a list of work order numbers, relating to different machines including the SLAM, a conveyor belt system, where packages are packed, scanned, weighed and labelled;

•

The SRME distributes these work orders between team members of a particular team- usually between fifty and one hundred work orders per shift;

•

Each Technician completes their assigned amount of work orders in the quota; and

•

In addition, tickets are raised by other employees in the warehouse and logged in an internal website.

[25]

The day is structured as follows:

•

Between 6:00am and 8:00am, there is a general maintenance window.

•

Between 8:00am and 8:30am, production begins for the day and conveyor belts are turned on and boxes are loaded.

•

Production ends between 5:30pm and 6:00pm daily.

[26]

At the start and end of each shift, Technicians attend a 15-minute hand over meeting.

[27]

During the production period, Technicians attend to work orders, breakdowns, and tickets, and take their mandated breaks.

[28]

Mr Petrie was expected to record his time against a quota in order to satisfy a team target of 100% of planned maintenance (being carried out) per shift. This information was used to generate a Productivity Report which was reviewed by management of the Respondent.

Use of Slack in the workplace

[29]

Slack is the messaging platform used by Amazon employees to contact one another during work hours. It can be used to send messages, photos, videos, and other attachments across different channels, including to individuals and to groups.

[2026] FWC 2346

[30]

Mr Petrie’s evidence was that staff would often share messages on Slack, including writing jocular insults and swear words and in some circumstances images such as drawings of male genitalia.

[31]

Ms Qayyum’s evidence was that Slack was a workplace communication tool, and employees are required to communicate professionally and in accordance with Amazon’s policies (including the Confidentiality, Communications and Social Media Policy, together with its Electronic Communications Policy). These policies expressly prohibit use of these systems to transmit messages or material that may be discriminatory or offensive, or are defamatory, untrue or malicious, and forbid sending any offensive material.

[32]

The evidence demonstrates that Slack was used for formal communications and work instruction, including brief, shorthand informal exchanges, but also was used very casually amongst the Amazon workforce. Exchanges tendered by the Applicant included numerous emojis, swearwords, images of equipment with captions such as “This sh%$ doesn’t work”, irreverent exchanges about lunch, colourful complaints about changes in the workplace, images of problematic plant of the Respondent and completely inappropriate exchanges regarding a female food delivery driver.

[33]

Many of these exchanges occurred in chats which included Mr Petrie’s supervisors.

Disciplinary Process

[34]

On 30 July 2025, the Applicant was suspended on full pay and given a letter of allegations detailing four allegations against him (First Allegations Letter) as follows:

Allegation 1:

On 13 July 2025 it is alleged; you engaged inappropriate commentary towards your Senior Technician that is discriminatory in nature specifically regarding their ethnic background. Specifically, on:

•

13 July 2025 at 9:58am – “Manu, put your pen down. Relax, it seems like you just got your pen license”.

•

13 July 2025 at 10:09am – “ok now. Pen down”.

This has resulted in the Senior Technician feeling humiliated and degraded.

This behavior is inconsistent with Amazon’s Workplace Behavior Policy conducting amounting to Harassment which states:

‘Harassment is unwanted conduct which affects your dignity at work, is personally offensive to you, and creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive work environment. For example – ridiculing someone because of their sex, race, color, nationality, ethnic origin, religious or similar beliefs, gender, martial status, trade union membership, sexual orientation, disability or age’.

[2026] FWC 2346

Allegation 2:

On multiple occasions between 11 July and 17 July 2025 it is alleged you engaged in inappropriate commentary using Amazon’s instant messaging system ‘Slack’ responding in private and public chats after your Senior Technician provided you with reasonable management instructions. Specifically, on:

•

11 July 2025 at 5:15pm – “What is missing? Any qualified tradesman knows what to do with that FWO. Sound like you are just causing trouble again Manu”.

•

11 July 2024 at 5:27pm – “I am happy for you to fill it in. thx”

•

13 July 2025 at 8:43am – “You can complete all of them across the whole weekend (X red emoji) I have lots of hours due”.

•

13 July 2025 at 9:54am – “This was to inform only, Kishor, Manu (No Judgement) Just a thanks for the notification is all that’s required”.

•

17 July 2025 at 6:21am – “So Silly”

•

17 July 2025 at 8:16am – “Manu, again on the attack”.

As a result, these comments have created a hostile environment for the Senior Technician.

This behavior is inconsistent with:

Amazon’s Discipline Policy conduct amounting to misconduct which states:

‘Failure to carry out lawful, reasonable or safe instructions given by a supervisor’; failure to provide reasonable information to managers’ and ‘Unprofessional behavior towards customers, colleagues, and suppliers (including any visitors or clients of Amazon)’.

Amazon’s Workplace Behavior Policy conducting amounting to Harassment which states:

‘Harassment is unwanted conduct which affects your dignity at work, is personally offensive to you, and creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive work environment – examples of harassment include but are not limited to deliberately excluding, shunning, or ignoring a colleagues or deliberately excluding them from work or social activities involving other colleagues’.

Allegation 3:

On the 8 July 2025 it is alleged that you completed PM work orders on APM without attending to the equipment and completing the work physically.

Date

Work Order

Hour and Minutes Booked

OEE Log

08.07.25

1044841202

0H36M (0.6)

SLAM 5 Does Not stop meaning no PM was carried

08.07.25

1044841197

0H36M (0.6)

SLAM 4 Does Not stop meaning no

PM was carried

This has resulted in team 3 not meeting their target of 100% planned maintenance per shift. This could have resulted in a customer impact in the form of a breakdown or unplanned stoppage during a high-volume event.

[2026] FWC 2346

This behavior directly impacts and is inconsistent with Amazon’s Leadership Principle Customer Obsession, which focuses on putting customers first in everything we do.

This is consistent with Amazon’s Discipline Policy – conduct amounting to Gross misconduct which states:

•

‘Falsification of documentation and/or fraud’

•

‘Acts of dishonesty such as taking personal leave for non-genuine illness, theft of money or property, or any dishonest conduct in connection with the performance of your duties’

Allegation 4:

On 8 July to 13 July 2025, it is alleged you have over-booked your work orders on multiple occasions. Specifically, on:

Date

Work Order

Hour and Minutes Booked

OEE Log

08.07.25

1044841196

0H36M (0.6)

SLAM 3 stopped for 1H27M starting at 06:21

08.07.25

1044841191

0H36M (0.6)

SLAM 1 Stopped for 20 minutes from 07:15

08.07.25

1044841194

0H36M (0.6)

SLAM 2 Stopped for 59 minutes at 07:14am

08.07.25

1045239112 (FWO)

0H48M

SLAM 2 Stopped for 59 Minutes at 07:14am

11.07.25

1044932484

0H42M

SLAM 1 Stopped for 18 Minutes at 06:43am

11.07.25

1044932501

0H45M

SLAM 4 stopped for 36 minutes from 07:15am

11.07.25

1044932491

0H45M

SLAM 3 stopped for 26 minutes from 07:13am

11.07.25

1045339144 (FWO)

0H20M

SLAM 1 Stopped for 18 minutes from 06:43

12.07.25

1044958617

0H42M

SLAM 1 Stopped for 33 minutes from 07:13am

12.07.25

1044958619

0H42m

SLAM 3 Stopped for 8 minutes at 07:03am

12.07.25

1044958618

0H42M

SLAM 2 stopped for 21 minutes at 07:19am

12.07.25

1045374367 (FWO)

0H30M

SLAM 1 Stopped for 33 minutes from 07:13am

13.07.25

1044977055

0H27M

SLAM 6 Stopped for 13 minutes from 08:07am

13.07.25

1044977052

0H24M

SLAM 4 Stopped for 18 minutes from 07:17am

13.07.25

1044977056

0H30M

SLAM 7 stopped for 8 minutes from 07:56am

13.07.25

1044977049

0H45M

SLAM 2 Stopped for 20 minutes from 06:44am

13.07.25

1044977048

0H45M

SLAM 1 Stopped for 32 minutes 06:44

[2026] FWC 2346

13.07.25

1044977054

1H0M

SLAM 5 stopped for 17 minutes at 07:37

13.07.25

1044977050

0H24M

SLAM 3 stopped for 9 minutes at 07:17am

Total

11H 59 Mins

Whilst investigating the above concern, it is also alleged you have doubled-up on Follow-up Work Orders (FWO) for some of the Slams.

This behaviour is inconsistent with Amazon’s Discipline Policy conduct amounting to misconduct which states:

•

‘Time wasting/idling’

•

‘Refusal to work agreed your obligated hours’

•

‘Willful dishonesty or theft from Amazon, its employees and/or its customers’

These matters are serious because, if substantiated, the above conduct may amount to misconduct, including because it may be in breach of your obligations under your contract of employment or under Amazon’s policies and procedures, including but not limited to:

•

Amazon’s Discipline Policy – conduct amounting to misconduct and gross misconduct

•

Amazon’s Workplace Behavior Policy – conduct amounting to harassment

If one or more of the allegations are substantiated, Amazon may decide to take disciplinary action against you, up to and including termination of your employment.

[35]

The First Allegations Letter stated that a meeting would be held the following day to discuss the allegations.

[36]

On 31 July 2025 the Applicant, together with his support person, met with his manager, Mr Miller and Ms Qayyum, the HR Business Partner for the Respondent. During this meeting, all four allegations were discussed.

[37]

On 6 August 2025, the Applicant was invited to attend another meeting to be held on 7 August. He attended that meeting with his representative from the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association (SDA), Mr Miller and Ms Qayyam. The attendees discussed some of the allegations from the First Allegations Letter in greater detail.

[38]

On 27 August 2025, the Applicant was provided with a letter containing an additional allegation against him (Second Allegation Letter) and invited to attend a meeting the following day. The Second Allegation Letter contained an additional allegation as follows:

Allegation 5:

Between 7 August to 12 August 2025, it is alleged you have externally emailed the following content:

•

Amazon training material

•

Amazon policies and part pricing

•

RME shift information and material

[2026] FWC 2346

•

RME employee and organizational information

The contents of the emails contain confidential information regarding Amazon business plans, strategies and employee information. This may have a significant detrimental impact on Amazon and its customers. This behaviour breaches Amazon’s Leadership Principle ‘Earns Trust’ and the following Amazon Policies:

•

Confidential information and NDA Guidelines and Policy which states ‘In some circumstances, the disclosure of employee information can create security or competitive risks. For these reasons, confidential employee information must be maintained with appropriate confidentiality.’

•

Confidentiality, Communications and Social Media policy which states ‘externally emailing information about business plans, pricing strategies and technology used and also information about employees. Information that was externally sent could hurt Amazon or our customers and assist our competitors and damage the trust of our customers.’

•

Electronic Communication Policy which states ‘Email Amazon material or documents to a personal or external email address without the permission of the IT department and your line manager’.

•

Confidentiality Agreement – signed on 16 September 2021

•

Amazon’s Discipline Policy – conduct amounting to misconduct and gross misconduct

•

Amazon’s Workplace Behavior Policy – conduct amounting to harassment

•

Confidential information and NDA Guidelines and Policy – specifically Employee Information

•

Amazon’s Confidentiality, Communications and Social Media policy

•

Amazon’s Electronic Communication Policy

If one or more of the allegations are substantiated, Amazon may decide to take disciplinary action against you, up to and including termination of your employment.

[39]

On 28 August 2025, the Applicant, together with his representative from the SDA, met with Mr Miller and Ms Qayyum. During this meeting, the new allegation was discussed. The Applicant also raised concerns about the investigation process.

[40]

On 5 September 2025, the Applicant was approached by Ms Tran, an Interim HR Business Partner of the Respondent, who offered to investigate the Applicant’s concerns regarding the investigation process. The Applicant accepted this offer.

[41]

On 17 September 2025, the Applicant was advised that he was to attend a meeting the following day with Ms Greta McCarty, Operations Manager, and Mr. Chubie Obiegbu, an HR representative at Amazon. He was also emailed a letter titled “Investigation Outcome and Notice to Show Cause” (Show Cause Letter). The Show Cause Letter stated that the Respondent had determined that Allegations 1,2 and 3 from the Second Allegation Letter and the fifth allegation from the Second Allegation Letter had been substantiated. Allegation 4 was to be considered “neutral”. The Show Cause Letter stated that the termination of the Applicant’s

[2026] FWC 2346

employment was proposed, and that the Applicant had the opportunity to provide a response before the meeting on 18 September 2025.

[42]

On 17 September 2025, the Applicant sent an email to Ms Tran including a timeline of the investigative process and his written reply to the allegations for her consideration as part of her investigation. He then forwarded the same email to Ms McCarty on 18 September prior to the scheduled meeting.

[43]

On 18 September 2025, Mr Miller advised the Applicant that Ms McCarty was no longer involved and that Mr Bulurda, Operations Manager, would be leading the meeting.

[44]

On 18 September 2025, the Applicant attended a meeting with his representative from the SDA, Mr Obiegbu and Mr Bulurda. As part of this meeting, it became apparent that neither Mr Bulurda or Mr Obiegdu had received the document sent to Ms McCarty the preceding day. Accordingly, the Applicant read it aloud during the meeting.

[45]

On 24 September 2025, the Applicant was invited to an Outcome meeting the following day with Mr Obiegbu and Mr Bulurda.

[46]

On 25 September 2025 at approximately 1:30pm, the Applicant sent an email to Mr Obiegbu and Mr Bulurda, including his written response to the Show Cause Letter and the email sent to Ms McCarty on 18 September.

[47]

On 25 September 2025, at approximately 3.30pm, the Applicant and his SDA Representative attended a meeting with Mr Obiegbu and Mr Bulurda. At the meeting the Applicant was provided with a letter upholding allegations 1,2,3 and 5 and terminated with four weeks’ payment in lieu of notice. He was then allowed to empty his tool locker, which was brought to him, and escorted off the premises.

Consideration

Credibility of witness evidence

[48]

The Applicant submitted that the Applicant’s evidence should be accepted and preferred where there was any inconsistency with the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses because he was honest, consistent, and made appropriate concessions when challenged. The Applicant also relies upon the Applicant’s honest and open admissions during the show cause process and the Commission proceedings.

[49]

The Respondent submitted that its evidence should be preferred to the extent that it differed from that which had been provided by the Applicant, particularly with respect to the Applicant’s evidence regarding the purported authorisation of visual checks on SLAM machines, machine components and safety issues with inspecting the SLAM machines, the authorisation of emailing himself documents, his request from Mr Miller for a reference, acting up as an L4, evidence about banter with Mr Trujillo and ‘paying him a compliment’ and approaching Mr Miller regarding Mr Trujillo’s conduct. It also submitted that for these reasons, and as Mr Petrie was an unimpressive witness who gave evasive and unresponsive answers to questions, that he was not a witness of credit.

[2026] FWC 2346

The Applicant

[50]

I consider the Applicant to be an honest and reliable witness. I make this finding based on what the witness said including appropriate concessions that he made under cross examination, and his demeanour. He was, however, in large part unshakeable on the core aspects of his testimony and recollection.

[51]

The Applicant’s credibility was attacked by the Applicant on the basis outlined in the preceding paragraph including that his oral evidence was inconsistent with that of various witnesses of the Respondent. I do not accept this submission. I have considered all of the evidence relied upon by the Respondent to support this submission. Focussing on the main instances relied upon by the Respondent where the evidence of the Applicant and the Respondent’s witnesses was contradictory, I accept that the Respondent witnesses did not authorise the Applicant to perform a visual inspection on the SLAM machines but, for the reasons expanded on below, I infer that the Applicant had a genuine but mistaken belief that his conduct had been authorised.

[52]

In relation to Mr Petrie’s evidence regarding whether he was authorised to send himself documents by Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller on 7 August 2025, I accept that during the investigation Mr Petrie maintained that he was prejudiced by not having access to certain documents at home in circumstances where he was being asked to attend meetings and respond to allegations on short notice, and that he had been previously authorised in 2023 to send himself emails in order to defend himself. Mr Petrie’s statement filed in these proceedings included a statement that in the meeting of 7 August he had asked if he could “share information via email with the union and myself to defend these allegations”. This was not something that Mr Petrie had asserted during the investigation process. This statement would appear to be the first occasion on which Mr Petrie contended that his conduct had been authorised on 7 August. Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller denied that they had authorised the sharing of information on 7 August. I accept their evidence about the 7 August meeting. Mr Petrie also gave evidence that at the meeting of 28 August, his Union representative sought confirmation from Mr Miller and Ms Qayyum that Mr. Petrie could forward his representative Amazon material relating to the investigation and was advised it was ok to do so. They did not deny that Mr Burke of the SDA made the request on 28 August. Ultimately, Mr Petrie appeared to accept in cross-examination that he had not been authorised to email himself or his Union documents by Ms Qayyum or Mr Miller on 7 August.3 This concession was against his interests. As detailed further below, he clarified that this occurred after the second meeting, which I understand to mean after the 7 August meeting. I consider that he was likely confused about the sequence of events when making his statements in these proceedings. I accept Mr Petrie’s evidence that his belief on both counts arose from previous authorisation in similar circumstances from other Amazon employees. I do not consider that his limited reliance in oral testimony on various matters such as seeking the reference from Mr Miller or paying Mr Trujillo a “compliment” undermined his evidence, nor his credit. I consider these were throw away comments in the witness box that do not as a whole undermine his evidence or my impression of that evidence. Mixed evidence was given by the witnesses of the Respondent regarding the vexed question of whether the SLAM machines have a ‘ribbon sensor’ or a ‘media sensor’ or a ‘ribbon and media sensor’. I make no credit finding against Petrie arising from his evidence on these issues.

[2026] FWC 2346

[53]

In my observation, the Applicant sometimes struggled to understand the questions being asked of him. He did not appear to be a sophisticated man and, in my assessment, was sometimes genuinely confused by questions asked of him. My assessment was that he attempted to answer questions to the best of his knowledge and belief, albeit with a touch of wry larrikin in some of his responses. He was forthright and gave detailed answers. He made significant concessions. Having considered all of the evidence and the submission of the parties regarding credit, I conclude that I did not consider that his evidence was unresponsive, implausible, evasive or vague as submitted by the Respondent. I found him to be a credible witness.

Witnesses of the Respondent

[54]

I found all witnesses of the Respondent to have been reliable witnesses of credit, other than Mr Bulurda. In particular, I note that Mr Trujillo, Mr Miller and Ms Qayyum made appropriate concessions under cross examination. I have also reached this conclusion based on all of the witness’s demeanour. I deal further with Mr Bulurda’s evidence and credit below.

Initial matters

[55]

Under section 396 of the Act, the Commission is obliged to decide the following matters before considering the merits of the application:

(a)

whether the application was made within the period required in subsection 394(2);

(b)

whether the person was protected from unfair dismissal;

(c)

whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code;

(d)

whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.

[56]

There is no dispute between the parties and I am satisfied on the evidence that:

(a)

Mr. Petrie’s application for unfair dismissal was made within the period required in s. 394(2) of the Act;

(b)

Mr. Petrie was a person protected from unfair dismissal;

(c)

The Respondent, a rather large organisation indeed, was not a small business and, accordingly the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code did not apply; and

(d)

Mr. Petrie’s dismissal was not a genuine redundancy.

[57]

Section 390 of the Act provides that the Commission may order a remedy if:

(a)

The Commission is satisfied that the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed; and

[2026] FWC 2346

(b)

the Applicant has been unfairly dismissed.

[58]

Both limbs must be satisfied. I have determined at [56] above that the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed. I must therefore turn to consider whether the Applicant has been unfairly dismissed.

[59]

Section 385 of the Act provides that a person has been unfairly dismissed if the Commission is satisfied that:

(a)

the person has been dismissed; and

(b)

the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and

(c)

the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d)

the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

[60]

There was no dispute that Mr. Petrie had been dismissed. Having already determined that the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code did not apply and that this was not a case of genuine redundancy, I will turn to consider whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Was the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?

[61]

Section 387 of the Act requires that I take into account each of the matters set out in s. 387(a)-(h) in considering whether Mr. Petrie’s dismissal was harsh, unjust and/or unreasonable. Section 387 is as follows:

387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.

In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:

(a)

whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and

(b)

whether the person was notified of that reason; and

(c)

whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and

(d)

any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and

(e)

if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and

(f)

the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

[2026] FWC 2346

(g)

the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(h)

any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.

[62]

Each matter must be given appropriate weight having regard to the factual findings and taking into account the submissions of the parties. I address each of these matters in turn below.

[63]

In Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd4 McHugh and Gummow JJ considered the concepts of ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’ as follows:

… It may be that the termination is harsh but not unjust or unreasonable, unjust but not harsh or unreasonable, or unreasonable but not harsh or unjust. In many cases the concepts will overlap. Thus, the one termination of employment may be unjust because the employee was not guilty of misconduct which the employee acted, may be unreasonable because it was decided upon inferences which could not reasonably have been drawn from the material before the employer, and may be harsh in its consequences for the personal and economic situation of the employee or because it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct in respect of which the employer acted.

Was there a valid reason for the dismissal of Mr. Petrie (s. 387(a))?

Consideration

[64]

In order to be a valid reason, the reason for the dismissal should be ‘sound, defensible or well founded’5 and should not be ‘capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced’.6 However, the Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it was in the position of the employer.7

[65]

In cases relating to alleged conduct, the Commission must make a finding, on the evidence provided, whether, on the balance of probabilities, the conduct occurred8. The employer bears the evidentiary onus of proving that the conduct on which it relies took place9.

Did the conduct occur?

[66]

Per the Full Bench in King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd:10

The question of whether the alleged conduct took place and what it involved is to be determined by the Commission on the basis of the evidence in the proceedings before it. The test is not whether the employer believed, on reasonable grounds after sufficient enquiry, that the employee was guilty of the conduct which resulted in termination.

[67]

I find that, as per Newton,11 the relevant test for whether a valid reason existed to dismiss an employee is objective. In reaching my conclusions on this matter, I have considered the oral evidence and all filed material relied on by the parties.

[68]

The conduct that Mr Petrie was found to have engaged in and formed the basis for this dismissal was as follows:

[2026] FWC 2346

Allegation 1:

On 13 July 2025 it is alleged; you engaged inappropriate commentary towards your Senior Technician that is discriminatory in nature specifically regarding their ethnic background. Specifically, on:

•

13 July 2025 at 9:58am – “Manu, put your pen down. Relax, it seems like you just got your pen license”.

•

13 July 2025 at 10:09am – “ok now. Pen down”.

This has resulted in the Senior Technician feeling humiliated and degraded. Your responses included but not limited to:

•

You described how the team use Slack – ‘Team is quite jovial, relaxed and friendly towards each other’.

•

You admitted to sending the message – ‘Yes, Manu sent paragraphs – he doesn’t need to write that much’.

•

You expressed your intention of the message – He’s quite fluent and writing long letters, it was enough words. He was telling me about policies, and it didn’t have to be that much. We can work on a friendly basis – wasn’t racial and wrote a hell of a lot’.

•

You described your relationship with the Senior Technician – ‘He’s never spoken to me. No verbal conversation usually just walks away’.

Finding: In view of your admission and other evidence obtained, I confirm that the above allegation against you is substantiated. Whilst the commentary is not discriminatory in nature, Amazon has determined the comments were nonetheless inappropriate. Amazon has noted your mention of the Senior RME Technician’s behaviour.

This conduct is in breach of the following Amazon Policies:

Discipline Policy which states ‘Unprofessional behavior towards customers, colleagues, and suppliers (including any visitors or clients of Amazon)’

Allegation 2:

11 July 2025 at 5:15pm – “What is missing? Any qualified tradesman knows what to do with that FWO. Sound like you are just causing trouble again Manu”.

11 July 2024 at 5:27pm – “I am happy for you to fill it in. thx”

13 July 2025 at 8:43am – “You can complete all of them across the whole weekend (X red emoji) I have lots of hours due”

13 July 2025 at 9:54am – “This was to inform only, Kishor, Manu (No Judgement) Just a thanks for the notification is all that’s required”.

17 July 2025 at 6:21am – “So Silly”

17 July 2025 at 8:16am – “Manu, again on the attack”.

As a result, these comments have created a hostile environment for the Senior Technician.

[2026] FWC 2346

Your responses included but not limited to:

•

Comment 1:

•

You mentioned you thought you had completed it correctly.

•

You mentioned that you asked other tradesmen what was missing from the FWO.

•

You expressed why you were very short in the message as you were finalizing the end of shift.

•

Comment 2:

•

You mentioned that anyone can fix the issue as it helps the team.

•

Comment 3:

•

You confirmed that you did not send this message. You only added the ‘(X red emoji) I have a lot of hours due’.

•

You mentioned you couldn’t get the 56hrs of Knets completed.

•

You confirmed the team may have provided you with alternative solutions to get the Knets completed but you can’t recall the day.

•

Comment 4:

•

You mentioned Manu wrote you another friendly script.

•

You mentioned that you tried to explain why you could not complete the Knets.

•

You expressed that the message was directed to both Kishor and Manu. As initially it was only for Kishor and edited to include Manu.

•

Comment 5:

•

You expressed the comment directed towards Operations – ‘So silly was about operations how they handled that situation and how they addressed it. Nothing to do with Manu’.

•

You expressed the language used on Slack is quite jovial and there’s a little banter.

•

Comment 6:

•

The confirmed the reason why you wrote that comment – ‘(The Snr Tech) Didn’t need to do (write) that’.

•

Allegation 2:

•

You confirmed your understanding of the Senior RME Technician role – ‘They direct what work we do and mediate between 5s and assist us’.

•

You confirmed if their role includes providing technician feedback about business objectives – ‘sure’.

•

You expressed how you communicate with the Senior RME Technician – ‘(verbal conversations) nothing never – I have tried.’

•

You expressed you could not recall if you had previous feedback given to you regarding your quality of your work orders or your communication style – ‘Nothing’.

Finding: In view of your admission and other evidence, I can confirm all comments from Allegation 2 are substantiated.

This conduct is in breach of the following Amazon Policies:

Discipline Policy which states ‘Unprofessional behavior towards customers, colleagues, and suppliers (including any visitors or clients of Amazon)’.

Allegation 3:

On the 8 July 2025 it is alleged that you completed preventative maintenance (PM) work orders on APM without attending to the equipment and completing the work physically.

[2026] FWC 2346

Date

Work Order

Hour and Minutes Booked

OEE Log

08.07.25

1044841202

0H36M (0.6)

SLAM 5 Does Not stop

08.07.25

1044841197

0H36M (0.6)

SLAM 4 Does Not stop

This has resulted in team 3 not meeting their target of 100% planned maintenance per shift.

This could have resulted in a customer impact in the form of a breakdown or unplanned stoppage during a high-volume event. This behavior directly impacts and is inconsistent with Amazon’s Leadership Principle Customer Obsession, which focuses on putting customers first in everything we do.

Your responses included but not limited to:

•

You confirmed when preventative maintenance is usually completed – ‘Any time of the day’.

•

You confirm that you were assigned these two PM’s – ‘yes I have – given a lot more than two’.

•

You confirmed that these PMs are familiar, and you knew how to complete them – ‘I guess yes’.

•

You described the usual tasks included for this PM – ‘Quality of the label is the most important – getting product out – machine working and available and getting label quality. Multiple way – visual, test print, packages coming out of the line, EEO, operators getting their feedback, kick outs. Label quality and verify print’.

•

You mentioned you trained another technician and that you completed the task on the 8 July 2025 – ‘Had training that day with Riyaz – 4, 5 ,6 7 done whilst training. Had a breakdown. Did 1,2, 3 – but lost maintenance window. Riyaz couldn’t complete it – completed PMs visually’.

•

You mentioned you taught a technician how to visually check – ‘Showed him how to do a visual check’.

•

You confirmed how undertake a visual check – ‘check the EEO data, kick out and physical label on the kick out and ask jam busters on the label issues. Yeah, not on the tech checklist but I still do it’.

•

You expressed your previous Senior RME Technician’s found visual checks were acceptable –‘Check the label and sign those checks off – approval from Jason and Brett.

Finding: In view of your admission ‘visually completing the PMs’, EEO data and other evidence obtained, the above allegation against you is substantiated.

This conduct is in breach of Amazon’s Discipline Policy conduct amounting to gross misconduct which states:

•

‘Falsification of documentation and/or fraud’.

•

‘Acts of dishonesty such as taking personal leave for non-genuine illness, theft of money or property, or any dishonest conduct in connection with the performance of your duties’ .

[2026] FWC 2346

Allegation 5:

Between 7 August to 12 August 2025, it is alleged you have externally emailed the following content:

•

Amazon training material

•

Amazon policies and part pricing

•

RME shift information and material

•

RME employee and organizational information

Your responses included but not limited to:

•

You expressed Amazon’s expectation surrounding confidentiality – ‘allowed – done it previously in 2023 and 2025 – same allegation in 2023’.

•

You confirmed that you did send the content to your personal email – ‘sent emails only regards to the questions asked because I couldn’t get information in any other way’.

•

You confirmed the reason you sent training material to your personal email – ‘to answer those questions on the 7th and 8th.’

•

You confirmed the reason you sent policies to your personal email – ‘sent to personal email account. Referred work email address to defend myself in 2023 and sent to personal email to defend in 2025’.

•

You confirmed the reason you sent shift information and material to your personal email – ‘Referenced material for the 11hrs and slams questions. I didn’t know the pricing was on the shift report. Only used the top part (4 parts) of the report’ and ‘I didn’t know what shift I was on. And didn’t remember what I was doing on shift’.

•

You confirmed the reason you sent the organizational chart and employee information – ‘there were teams swap, I didn’t know who my leaders were and direct path of leaders’.

•

You expressed the low risk to the email being sent – ‘No security risk or hurt to Amazon’.

Finding: In view of your admission and other evidence obtained, I confirm that the above allegation against you is substantiated.

This conduct is in breach of the following Amazon Policies:

•

Electronic Communication Policy which states ‘Email Amazon material or documents to a personal or external email address without the permission of the IT department and your line manager’.

•

Confidentiality Agreement – signed on 16 September 2021.

[2026] FWC 2346

[69]

I have not included Allegation 4 in the above summary as I am satisfied that Amazon did not rely on the conduct the subject of this allegation in order to dismiss Mr Petrie, despite some infelicity of language in the letter which dismissed him.

[70]

Mr Petrie does not contest that he engaged in the vast majority of the conduct the subject of the allegations. He does, however, submit that the conduct, when considered individually or collectively, does not constitute a valid reason for dismissal. I find that Mr Petrie engaged in the conduct that was relied upon to dismiss him, other than where I find to the contrary below.

Did the conduct justify termination?

[71]

The Commission’s task is to determine, on an objective basis and based on the evidence before it, whether there was a valid reason to dismiss an employee. I will turn then to consider each of the reasons relied upon to dismiss Mr Petrie and whether they constituted a valid reason for the dismissal of Mr Petrie.

[72]

In order to be a valid reason, the reason for the dismissal should be “sound, defensible or well founded”12 and should not be “capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced.”13 However, the Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it was in the position of the employer.14

[73]

Where a dismissal relates to an employee’s conduct, the Commission must be satisfied that the conduct occurred and that it justified termination.15

[74]

In order to reach conclusions regarding whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal there must also be an assessment of the degree of seriousness of the conduct. As then Vice President Hatcher said in Raj Bista v Glad Group Pty Ltd t/a Glad Commercial Cleaning [2016] FWC 3009 at [34]:

…However merely establishing the factual basis for the reason for dismissal does not by itself demonstrate that it was a valid reason. It must, as s.387(a) makes clear, be a valid reason for dismissal – that is, dismissal must be a justifiable response to the relevant conduct or issue of capacity. Factually-established conduct which might, for example, justify the issue of a reprimand or a warning may not necessarily justify dismissal.

Reason 1 – Manu, put your pen down.

[75]

This reason for dismissal centres around two statements made by the Applicant to Mr Trujillo, his supervisor, on 13 July 2025. These comments were determined by the Respondent to be “inappropriate’ and in breach of the Respondent’s Discipline Policy which deals with ‘Unprofessional behavior towards customers, colleagues, and suppliers (including any visitors or clients of Amazon)’.

[2026] FWC 2346

[76]

The full exchange on 13 July was as follows:

Mr Petrie [6:40AM]:

Checklist

EU RME LOTO Demonstration, annual refresher required. Aug 2025

Mr Petrie [8:43AM]: You can complete all of them across the whole weekend X I have lots of hours due

Mr Trujillo [9:00AM]: Hey Colin, I am sorry for that, we tried to give you the space for that with a low work volume

•

After MW you had 3 SCs and 1 CBM Wo for Friday

•

After MW you had 2 SCs and 1 Monitron WO for Saturday

•

After MW you have 2 SCs and 1 CBM Wo for today

Add the slam mezz audit as a daily job as well but I think that’s a really low volume to have enough time to work on KNET, taking in count that during the weekend we didn’t have any breakdown the jams volume wasn’t crazy [edited by Mr Trujillo]

Mr Petrie [9:54AM]: This was to inform only, Kishor, Manu (No Judgment) Just a thanks for the notification is all that’s required.

Mr Trujillo [9:56AM]: Yeah all good, as you copied my text and sent it on the group I just tried to explain that we took in count that and we tried to give you space for it, nothing else mate

Mr Petrie [9:58AM]: Manu, put your pen down. Relax, it seems like you just got your pen licence.

Mr Trujillo [10:00AM]: Not at all, just trying to be completely transparent and avoid any misunderstanding mate. Communication is the key.

Mr Petrie [10:09AM]: ok now, pen down

[77]

The evidence of the Applicant was that Slack is used in an informal, jovial and relaxed way at the Respondent. The comments that are the subject of this finding were made in response to a message from Mr Trujillo concerning a work order, which Mr Petrie considered to be “unusually and unnecessarily long”. Mr Petrie’s evidence was that he did not mean to cause offence and was trying to be jovial to build a connection with Mr Trujillo.

[78]

Mr Trujillo’s evidence was that these comments made him feel targeted, disrespected and uncomfortable. Mr Trujillo did not raise any concern with Mr Petrie directly regarding this exchange or Mr Petrie’s approach to workplace communications.

[2026] FWC 2346

[79]

The Applicant submits that the messages could not objectively be viewed as inappropriate, nor do they justify the termination of Mr Petrie.

[80]

The Respondent submits that the Applicant engaged in inappropriate and hostile communications in breach of the Discipline Policy, which required employees to avoid unprofessional behaviour towards colleagues. It argues that he engaged in this conduct, despite knowing that his conduct did not meet the Respondent’s expectations and was not acceptable. It now submits that this behaviour was also in breach of the Workplace Behaviour Policy, which prohibits conduct amounting to harassment, including unwanted behaviour that creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or humiliating environment.

[81]

It submits that a breach of policy will “often, if not usually” be a valid reason for dismissal, as it is a fundamental breach of the central duty implied in employment contracts (if not stated expressly) that employees must comply with the lawful and reasonable directions of their employer and submits that, in any event, his conduct was in breach of the duty of good faith.

[82]

I have considered the conduct of Mr Petrie. His comments were responsive to his frustration with work orders and lengthy messages from Mr Trujillo- who, it seems, preferred to communicate in writing rather than having a conversation with Mr Petrie. It was Mr Petrie’s evidence that Mr Trujillo did not engage in any conversation with him about anything.

[83]

Whilst it might not have been the best joke in the world, I do consider that Mr Petrie was attempting to be jocular, when telling Mr Trujillo to put his pen down and saying that it seemed like Mr Trujillo had just got his ‘pen licence’. I have considered that these comments were directed at Mr Trujillo rather than by way of general commentary and that he felt targeted, disrespected and uncomfortable following these comments. I do not condone that behavior and, objectively, consider it to be unprofessional. It might best be described as “smart-arse”. However, Mr Petrie’s comments cannot be divorced from the realities of this particular workplace or considered in a vacuum. Mr Petrie was expressing his frustration about his workload and Mr Trujillo’s supervisory practice of sending lengthy notes, often at busy times of the day. Having regard to the way that this workplace operates, where I find that Slack was used in a very casual way with instantaneous offhand messaging, frequent jokes, swearing and venting about various workplace matters, I do not consider that Mr Petrie’s comments warranted his dismissal. In my view, they were at the lower end of seriousness and did not constitute harassment or discrimination. I do not consider that this conduct of the Applicant provided the Respondent with a sound, defensible or well-founded reason to dismiss Mr. Petrie.

Reason 2- The 11 July to 17 July 2025 Messages

[84]

As outlined above, the Respondent contends that it had a valid reason for the dismissal of Mr. Petrie as a result of his messages in various exchanges with Mr Trujillo between 11 to 17 July 2025.

[85]

I will turn to consider the various communications between Mr. Petrie and Mr Trujillo.

[2026] FWC 2346

11 July Comments

[86]

On 11 July 2025, at the beginning of the shift at 6:22am, Mr Trujillo asked Mr Petrie via Slack to complete the required details on a follow-up work order (FWO) that Mr Petrie had created some week or weeks before. The same day, at 5.15pm, at the end of his shift Mr Petrie replied and the following exchange occurred:

Mr Trujillo: Please, add a comment as per standard, you raised this FWO but there are some details missing

Mr Petrie: What is missing? any qualified tradesman knows what to do with that FWO. Soiund [sic] like like [sic] you are just causing trouble again manu

Mr Trujillo: There is a standard that we need to follow, for example tools required, PN missing, etc if we are not following the standard the next teach will do the same, and then we’ll be back at the asme point, people ,complaining about missing information, please just follow the standard. I am not causing any trouble, last time I didn’t cause any trouble, you are tech on my shift and you need to communicate the things properly, as I said, the one that needs to justify why we are handing over 4 jobs it’s me, so as a shift supervisor I need to know all the information and organize/change the plan if needed – I texted you explaining the situation and giving to you the correct context. I am just asking to fill the FWO as per standard, same than we request to the rest of the techs nothing else. Have a look the several times that the message has been sent by email or slack, I am just asking to you, as you raised this FWO, to do the things in the correct way, nothing else, if I found a FWO from other with information missing I’ll do the same. If you think that requesting, in a polite manner, to my techs to communicate effectively and promptly where they are working, or if they need help with the scheduled plan or just following a standard already on place for the entire RME team, we can discuss it with an Area Manager if you are feeling more comfortable or thinking I am not doing something properly. [edited]

Mr Petrie: I am happy for you to fill it in. thx

Mr Trujillo: thank you for that

[87]

Mr Petrie’s evidence was that another colleague had said to him “any tradesman knows what to do with that FWO” and that he had understood that Mr Trujillo had agreed to fill in the work order. Mr Trujillo’s evidence was that his message ‘thank you for that’ was not an expression of appreciation but rather, an acknowledgment that Mr Petrie had refused to do his job and was attempting to shift his responsibility to Mr Trujillo. Mr Trujillo provides further evidence at paragraph 10 of his statement that ‘validated standard operating procedures’ (VSOPs) are made available to technicians to guide them through processes, including filling out FWOs, and that it is not the practice of Senior Technicians to complete FWOs for Technicians, as the Technician has the firsthand knowledge of the asset and fault. Mr Trujillo’s evidence is that he asked Mr Petrie to complete the required details on the FWO in accordance with the VSOP process, which initiated the abovementioned exchange. Mr Petrie’s evidence was that he did not have his laptop on him at the time and accordingly could not amend the work order at the time of Mr Trujillo’s message. He says that he went to talk to Mr Trujillo

[2026] FWC 2346

about the follow up work order at the end of the shift following this exchange, but Mr Trujillo would not talk to him about it and walked off.

[88]

I do consider that this message was unprofessional. However, it must be considered within the context of the use of Slack in the workplace. As I understand the evidence, Slack is used on the go, in meetings, whilst performing work in a busy, dynamic, factory-like environment. It is used by employees in a casual and short-hand way with messages sent on the run. Whilst I consider that Mr Petrie could have handled this better I do not consider that it warranted his dismissal (when considered in isolation or with the other conduct the subject of this upheld allegation and the other reasons for dismissal).

13 July Comments

[89]

Over the period 11 July to 13 July 2025 the exchange excerpted at [76] above took place. The Respondent relied upon the statements at 8:43 am and 9:54 am on 13 July to dismiss Mr Petrie.

[90]

I find that Mr Petrie did not send the words “You can complete all of them across the whole weekend” although he did restate them in this message exchange.

[91]

The evidence of Mr Petrie was that he had relayed that he had a lot of training to do and then Mr Trujillo had posted in a separate group chat “You can complete all of them across the whole weekend”. Mr Petrie’s evidence was that he was rostered on for twenty-two hours of work, but had over 40 hours of online training to complete and that, accordingly, he had initially placed his red cross response in a message sent to Mr Kapote. Mr Petrie later copied this across in to a chat with both Mr Kapote and Mr Trujillo and placed an X next to Mr Trujillo’s comment and stated “I have lots of hours due.” He did, in fact, complete work on the training modules throughout the weekend.

[92]

Following a message from Mr Trujillo regarding the low work volume allocated to Mr Petrie over the weekend Mr Petrie replied “This was to inform only, Kishor.,Manu (No Judgement) Just a thanks for the notification is all that’s required”. This exchange then flowed into the exchange that is the subject of Allegation 1. Mr Petrie’s evidence was that this exchange including the (No Judgement) wordage was copied across from another chat channel with Mr Kapote and then Mr Trujillo’s name was added when the comment was pasted into the new channel. This was as Mr Kapote had suggested that Mr Trujillo should be informed regarding Mr Petrie’s issues with getting all the training done. Mr Petrie gave evidence that this exchange was missing a full stop and was not meant to be hurtful. I infer the full stop was intended to be after the word “,. Manu”. Mr Trujillo accepted that this last exchange was “nothing major” in cross-examination.

[93]

These exchanges are in the busy dynamic of the workplace and using the casual means of the Slack messaging platform. I do not consider the shorthand “X” and comment about Mr Petrie’s inability to get all of the work done to be unprofessional, nor his following comment to Mr Kapote and Mr Trujillo. He could not get all of the training done and was advising his supervisors. Could he have done it in a less brusque way? Yes. Did it justify his dismissal? In my view – no.

[2026] FWC 2346

16 – 17 July Messages

[94]

At hearing it became clear that the exchange on 16 – 17 July 2025 had occurred in the following order (with the comments of Mr Petrie that were relied upon to dismiss him in bold):

16 July

Mr Trujillo [Message also sent to channel]: So as I said in the past, any communication needs to come from our team, so ask to us before taking any action

17 July

Mr Petrie [42 minutes ago]: So silly.

Mr Trujillo [40 minutes ago]: What does it mean @colipetr?

Mr Petrie [22 minutes ago]: I thought the 3 AR techs communicated well yesterday.

Mr Trujillo [11 minutes ago]: At 11 am I replied after the questions from Brian and Riyaz, at 2.27pm I repeated it to emphasize that any communication should be coming from RME team.

I am just talking about that directions should be coming from us, if Operations is saying anything to all you, they need to discuss it with us and techs need to raise with senior or managers before following/changing any normal procedure.

Mr Petrie [Today at 7:35AM]: Also I personally spoke with Greta in the morning. In which she also confirmed RME not to be on the floor. She confirmed that preferred times of floor entry would be issued with tickets. So, yes it was managed poorly.

Mr Trujillo [42 minutes ago]: So, you had a chat with Greta and you didn’t raise it with RME< you didn’t communicate with Srmet, you just follow an instruction without consulting any RME team member, even that I said it twice in the group (11am and 2.27pm) that no communication was coming from RME so we needed to keep working as per normal. So yes, I can see a lack of communication.

Mr Petrie [40 minutes ago]: Manu, again on the attack. Yes I spoke with Kishor about it in my break, communication is not lacking on my behalf. “So yes, I can see a lack of communication.” [edited by Mr Petrie].

Mr Trujillo [22 minutes ago]: Colin is not an attack, I didn’t attack you now or previously, I can see a lack of communication is not an attack. You said some comments like – there is missing information, it was poorly managed, directly saying my reply was so late, that’s your point of view, just I said there is lack of communication and agree with your previous arguments but I didn’t attack anyone. Anyways, you break was after my communication at 11am and some days ago I emphasize the importance of communicate effectively to the seniors as soon as something come up, so before following the instructions from Ops, you should have asked to us, wait till 2pm on your

[2026] FWC 2346

break when we have tools to communicate everything asap like slack or radio it wasn’t what I requested some days ago. [edited by Mr Trujillo].

Mr Petrie [20 minutes ago]: No Words.

[emphasis added]

[95]

The evidence of Mr Petrie was that this exchange was in response to the approach taken by an Operations Manager of the Respondent the preceding day which prevented work orders from being fulfilled. The comment “So silly” was responsive to this and not to Mr Trujillo. The approach of the Operations Manager had been discussed with Mr Kapote as “silly” and repeated in a group chat and then over “radio chatter”. Mr Trujillo had not been present for all of these discussions and the discussions the preceding day with Mr Kapote. The message exchange then continued on with Mr Petrie praising the communications of his colleagues and relaying the communications he had personally had with the Operations Manager. He refers to the process being “managed poorly”- which, I accept, is not a reference to Mr Trujillo. Mr Trujillo then chastises Mr Petrie for the approach that he had taken. To which Mr Petrie responds “Manu’ again on the attack” and explains that he had spoken to the other supervisor about the issue previously. Ultimately, Mr Petrie’s evidence was that when the conversation changed to becoming “too serious” he ended it with “No words”. This last comment was not relied upon to dismiss Mr Petrie.

[96]

Having considered this exchange in full, together with the evidence of Mr Petrie, Mr Trujillo and Mr Kapote I do not consider that this exchange was unprofessional or in breach of the policy. I accept the evidence of Mr Petrie that the reference to “So Silly’ was not in response to Mr Trujillo’s statement but to the decision of the Operations Manager, which appeared to be something that was widely discussed in the workplace and not highly regarded by Mr Petrie’s team including Mr Kapote. Mr Kapote did not contradict this in his evidence. This fits with an objective reading of the whole message exchange. In addition, Mr Petrie’s comment that Mr Trujillo was on the attack was responsive to a very negative public statement made by Mr Trujillo regarding Mr Petrie’s performance.

[97]

Mr Trujillo agreed that there was nothing disrespectful or inappropriate about at least some of this exchange.

[98]

I do not consider that these comments warranted the Applicant’s dismissal (when considered in isolation or with the other conduct the subject of this upheld allegation and the other reasons for dismissal). These comments- which, in some circumstances, were in a chain of messages along with those the subject of the first upheld allegation against the Applicant, occurred over the course of six days. At most, I consider that some targeted training or counselling regarding use of the Slack system would have been warranted as a result of Mr Petrie’s conduct in sending these Slack messages.

[99]

Whilst I have found that some of Mr Petrie’s messaging was unprofessional, and it would therefore constitute a breach of Amazon policy, I consider that the breach was at the very lower end of seriousness. I do not consider that the conduct of the Applicant provided the Respondent with a sound, defensible or well-founded reason to dismiss Mr. Petrie.

[2026] FWC 2346

Reason 3 – Failure to properly physically complete preventative maintenance on 8 July and dishonesty regarding completing the maintenance

[100]

Mr Petrie admits that he was allocated two work orders on 8 July 2025 and that he did not complete physical maintenance on those SLAM machines by way of stopping the machines and doing various elements of the work order. SLAM machines have a primary function of applying a label on to the top of a parcel.

[101]

Mr Petrie’s evidence was that he had been given permission by Mr Kapote not to stop the SLAM machines and to sign off the work orders. This was in the context of it being Prime Day, and if a machine was stopped for maintenance for too long this would cause disruption.

[102]

His evidence on this was as follows:

At approximately 2:00pm on 8 July 2025, I spoke Mr Kishor Kapote, L4, who stated words to the effect of, “I have another job for you”. I was already overburdened with work orders to complete, so I responded with words to the effect of, “I haven’t finished all the work orders from this slam … You have asked me not to stop the SLAM lines… do you want me to do a quick check?”

Mr Kapote responded with words to the effect of, ”just get them ticked off’. Given L4 staff had regularly directed me to perform visual checks, I perceived this to mean that a visual check was appropriate, particularly given I had asked “do you want me to do a quick check”?

[103]

Mr Petrie’s evidence was that it was commonplace to conduct visual checks on machinery due to the volume of work and/or not receiving permission to stop the machinery in circumstances where following a visual check, the maintenance person was confident that the machine is safe to operate. Mr Petrie conducted visual checks on the two SLAM machines on 8 July 2025 and then signed them off by filling in the relevant paperwork. He recounted that a visual check included checking that labels were correct and adhering properly to boxes, checking various systems including the SCARTA system which records faults, the computer, the Overall Equipment Effectiveness System (OEEs) and getting advice from the jambusters, being other personnel of the Respondent.

[104]

He also gave evidence that he had previously been told to do this by his previous manager, Mr Pickering. Mr Pickering was not called by Amazon to give evidence but the Respondent did tender an email from Mr Pickering to the effect that technicians are expected to perform a full physical check of all SLAMS as a pre-start procedure and that at no time was Mr Petrie asked to complete a visual check only while working in Team 2. I give that email little to no weight. Mr Pickering did not give evidence in these proceedings and there was no explanation given by the Respondent for Mr Pickering not being called to be a witness in these proceedings.

[105]

I accept the evidence of Mr Petrie that he had previously been told by Mr Pickering to sign off on the visual checks and not complete physical checks on the SLAMS.

[106]

Mr Miller provides evidence that planned maintenance requires a hands-on inspection and service when the machine is stopped, as set out in the APM work order checklist for that asset. He states that a visual review of labels moving on a running line does not constitute planned maintenance. The purpose of planned maintenance is preventative, and includes, for

[2026] FWC 2346

instance, cleaning, inspecting sensors and verifying settings. This is to ensure, Mr Miller states, that machines remain reliable over the next day. The purpose of planned maintenance is not to glance at current output, and infer that no maintenance is required.

[107]

Mr Miller’s evidence is that it is critical that Technicians do not record planned maintenance as completed unless it has been physically carried out. The consequences might include unplanned stoppages that could jeopardise customer delivery commitments, delayed deliveries which might impact cost, performance metrics and undermine customer trust in the Respondent and increase risk to staff.

[108]

Mr Kapote’s evidence was that he did not direct Mr Petrie to complete planned maintenance by way of “visual checks”, and neither did he instruct him to sign off any planned maintenance work order without the work having been physically completed. His evidence was that the planned maintenance checks are “hands-on” tasks, and thus cannot be done visually. Mr Kapote also gave evidence that it was not a practice in his team to only rely on “visual checks” and not physical checks if they felt reasonably confident.

[109]

The Applicant’s submissions were that Mr Petrie was directed to perform visual checks, this formed part of authorised practice in the workplace, the work orders and procedures regarding SLAM maintenance were not fit for purpose, and that no safety issue or downtime arose as a result of Mr Petrie’s conduct.

[110]

Amazon’s position is that Mr Petrie’s conduct could have led to a breakdown or unplanned stoppage, impacting on customers. This is the only conduct relied upon to dismiss Mr Petrie that was characterised by Amazon as “gross misconduct” and was found to be falsification of a document or fraud and an act of dishonesty, in breach of Amazon’s Discipline Policy.

[111]

In addition, Amazon submits that this conduct alone would, in and of itself, more than warrant Mr Petrie’s termination as it constituted gross dishonesty. It submits that he didn’t do the allocated maintenance tasks and that he lied about that by filling in the work order as “completed”. Maintenance of SLAM machines is essential as by doing preventative maintenance you prevent breakdowns from occurring. It submits that these lies are compounded by Mr Petrie lying about having been instructed to do a visual check.

[112]

Mr Petrie was unshakeable in his evidence regarding his understanding that he was authorised to perform visual checks by Mr Kapote and Mr Pickering. He conceded that Mr Trujillo had not given him any such direction in the limited shifts that they had worked on together. Mr Kapote gave credible evidence that he did not tell Mr Petrie just to do visual checks. I have weighed the evidence up and accept that Mr Kapote did not give an express direction to Mr Petrie to do visual checks of the SLAM on 8 July 2025. Mr Kapote did not give any direct evidence about what conversations were had between Mr Kapote and Mr Petrie on 8 July 2025. Mr Kapote does not deny that a conversation regarding the work orders to be performed that day was had at all. His evidence is silent on this issue. This was normal practice. Mr Kapote did not set out in his evidence the content of any conversation. I accept that a conversation did occur between Mr Kapote and Mr Petrie about the work to be performed on that busy Prime Day. I infer that Mr Petrie understood from Mr Kapote saying words to the effect of “Just get them ticked off” that he was to sign off or “complete” the work orders and

[2026] FWC 2346

not to stop the SLAMS. This was his honest, but mistaken understanding given, I find, that this was a practice that he had been previously told to adopt by his previous supervisor. In the circumstances I do not consider that Mr Petrie acted dishonestly in conducting a visual check of the SLAM machines that day and marking the work order as complete.

[113]

I accept that daily maintenance of the SLAM machines is essential and that poor maintenance practices could have significant ramifications for Amazon. Mr Petrie ticked off a work order that day which said that he had performed a number of tasks which included (but was not limited to) cleaning the tamp surface and all parts in contact with labels, examining the tamp paid and guide rollers on the label applicator, checking the water trap on the compressed air attack, cleaning the ribbon sensor and cleaning the print head. His evidence was that the work orders are ticked off and closed even though everything in them is not done. This was said to be, in part, as not all of the tasks in the work order are done on every occasion that a SLAM is stopped for maintenance as some of the elements of the work order refer to outdated parts of the machinery such as a “ribbon sensor’. Mr Miller also gave evidence that the machines in Australia do not have a ribbon sensor but a media sensor which is located in the same place. Mr Trujillo’s evidence was that it is the same sensor. If the work order is not ticked as completed, then the order is not closed, and the team does not meet its utilisation quota.

[114]

I do not consider that Mr Petrie was dishonest or that he “falsified” the relevant document. I also conclude that the work order/procedure was not entirely fit for purpose. In the circumstances I do not consider that the conduct of the Applicant provided the Respondent with a sound, defensible or well-founded reason to dismiss Mr. Petrie.

Reason 4- Externally emailing Amazon policies, training material, shift information and employee and organizational information

[115]

It is not disputed that the Applicant sent himself the documents that are the subject of this finding. What is in dispute, however, is whether these documents are documents “regarding business plans, strategies, and employee information”. The finding against Mr Petrie was that sending these documents may have a “significant detrimental impact on Amazon and its customers”. The sending of these documents was said to breach various guidelines, policies and Mr Petrie’s confidentiality agreement. As these documents are said to be confidential, I have chosen to refer to them in fairly general terms in this decision. They include various emails sent between Mr Petrie and employees of the Respondent including Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller regarding a concern that Mr Petrie had about fatigue management policies, emails about daylight savings, a grievance from 2023, emails about working on electrical equipment, about Mr Petrie having had a heart attack and his recovery, and, emails asking Mr Petrie to review a training curriculum for the Respondent which contained links to the training, emails about training which included usernames of employees, notes that Mr Petrie had made for himself regarding his suspension, further emails about training, a meeting invitation from 2023 and emails regarding Amazon’s “Earn Trust principle”. At least one of these emails had been sent by an employee of the Respondent to Mr Petrie’s personal email address previously.

[116]

The Respondent also relies upon Mr Petrie sending an email which attached an organization chart which included the names, images and usernames of a number of employees in the Applicant’s workplace, one which included information including the names and images

[2026] FWC 2346

of RME managers and another organizational chart which had the names and faces of various members of the RME team including Mr Petrie’s fellow team members.

[117]

Further documents relied upon to anchor this reason for the dismissal included an email containing a shift report which included some information about spare parts of the Respondent including their price, one containing a work order and one containing Mr Petrie’s notes of work performed by him on 8 July 2025 (akin to a work diary). Finally, the Respondent accepts that an email containing the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2020, which was relied upon to dismiss Mr Petrie did not contain confidential information. Both Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller accepted that some of the emails sent by Mr Petrie did not contain confidential information and did not breach the relevant policy and Ms Qayyum conceded that some other emails were at the lower end of seriousness.

[118]

The first thing to note is that the evidence establishes that these documents were sent by Mr Petrie to Mr Petrie during the course of the investigation that led to his dismissal. I accept that he sent these documents in order to best respond to the allegations against him. One of the documents was also sent to the SDA.

[119]

Mr Petrie’s evidence regarding this allegation can be summarised as follows:

(a)

He felt that he did not have enough information to sufficiently respond to the allegations including as he had no access to work orders and records that were being referred to in Allegations 3 and 4.

(b)

He felt that the only way he could genuinely defend myself and have a fair chance at responding to the allegations against him was to have access to documents relating to the investigation, for his own reference and for no other reason.

(c)

He had no intention of using the documents in an inappropriate way, such as in a way that would breach confidentiality or cause harm to Amazon and its customers.

(d)

He was not aware of restrictions on accessing any documents prior to receiving the Show Cause Letter.

(e)

In his statement filed on 24 December 2025, Mr Petrie stated that he had asked Mr Miller and Ms Qayyum in the meeting of 7 August whether it was acceptable to “share information via email with the union and to myself to defend these allegations”. He recalls that they responded with words to the effect of “yes”. He then followed the procedure that was set out in the First Allegations letter. He corrected this evidence under cross-examination making it clear that any approval came after the ‘second meeting’.

(f)

He had done something similar with the permission of named representatives of the Respondent’s PXT team in 2023.

(g)

The Respondent has sent him documents to his home address since he had commenced with it.

(h)

He had previously been required to complete online training modules at home on a personal device.

(i)

He had sent himself the sets of organisational charts to ensure that he could ensure that he described teams properly and named his colleagues correctly (including spelling their names) in preparing his response to the allegations against him.

[2026] FWC 2346

[120]

Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller disputed that Mr Petrie had been given permission in the 7 August meeting to send himself emails to his home email address. I accept that evidence. No evidence was given in response to Mr Petrie’s evidence that he had previously been given permission to send himself documents in 2023, other than some confined evidence from Ms Qayyum that her enquiries had not turned up any evidence to support Mr. Petrie’s evidence. In these circumstances, I prefer and accept Mr Petrie’s direct evidence that he was authorised to do so in 2023.

[121]

It became obvious during the cross-examination of Ms Qayyum that the alleged confidential information contained in the documents described in [115] was the email addresses of Amazon employees. This could lead to the identification of an employee’s username or login. Some of the emails also contained links to training modules of Amazon. In cross-examination Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller made appropriate concessions to the effect that a number of the documents relied upon to dismiss Mr Petrie were not confidential.

[122]

In relation to the documents recorded in [116] the confidential information was said to be the images, usernames and names of various Amazon employees.

[123]

In relation to the documents recorded in [117] the confidential information was said to be information about parts of the Respondent including their price and information contained in the work order and work diary.

[124]

I will turn to consider each of these sets of documents in turn. Firstly, it would seem to me that the email addresses of Amazon employees are not confidential. That is- there is no policy in evidence before me that prevents Amazon employees from sending emails to external addresses (provided they don’t have Amazon information in them). By way of example, if an Amazon employee wanted to send an email to a third party or themselves which did not include Amazon information then that is not prohibited.

[125]

In relation to the second group of emails, these include the images, names and in some circumstances usernames of Amazon employees. There is no evidence before me that Amazon employees are precluded from having their names and faces from being associated with their employer. To the contrary, Mr Miller has a LinkedIn profile disclosing that he is an Amazon employee. Amazon employees engage with each other using their usernames. The information is in internal directories available to staff (presumably on the intranet or via email) and was readily obtainable by Mr Petrie. Mr Petrie shared this information with himself.

[126]

In relation to the third group of documents which include information about parts of the Respondent including their price and information contained in the work order and work diary. In relation to the price of the part, it seems odd to me that if the price of a part was so highly confidential that it would be sitting in a work order that is accessible to its maintenance workers. I accept, however, that the work order is marked as Confidential. In any event, I accept that sending this information breached the Confidentiality, Communications and Social Media Policies in the Respondent’s Employee Handbook. However, I consider that, given the recipient was Mr Petrie that this was a minor breach, has not prejudiced Amazon in any way and had only a very remote chance of damaging Amazon.

[2026] FWC 2346

[127]

The Applicant contended that his emails did not contain confidential information, or in the alternative that if Mr Petrie did breach any Amazon policies then any breach is a minor breach and does not warrant the Applicant’s dismissal. It also points out that Mr Petrie has not been asked to delete them and no court action has been taken to retrieve them.

[128]

The Respondent submitted that these documents did contain confidential information, that their dissemination did constitute a breach the Respondent’s policies and agreements and that they did have the potential to cause damage to the respondent including by increasing the risk of phishing and if a competitor became aware of the price of a part of Amazon machinery.

[129]

Many of the documents sent do not appear to contain any confidential information as it is normally understood, such as trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. These documents were sent by Mr Petrie to himself, and in the case of one email containing a complaint made in April 2025, to his Union. I accept that they were sent solely for the purpose of preparing his response to the allegations against him and the likely dismissal to come.

[130]

Mr Petrie’s evidence is that he understood he had been given permission to send documents to himself by Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller on 7 August 2025. Their evidence is to the contrary. I accept their evidence. As outlined above, I accept Mr Petrie’s evidence that he had been authorized to do something similar in 2023.

[131]

Ultimately, I prefer Mr Petrie’s oral testimony which would seem to correct his filed statement that he was authorized on 7 August 2025 to send himself and his Union emails documents. His oral testimony was as follows:

Mr Ward: It’s true, isn’t it, that it’s not true to say that you asked anyone for permission to email any of these documents to yourself?

Mr Petrie: I was asking religiously every meeting, every – during all the investigation meetings, ‘I don’t have access to this, I don’t think it’s fair, I need to get access.’

Mr Ward: That’s not quite the question. It’s true, isn’t it, that you didn’t say to anyone who was interviewing you, ‘I want to email’ – for example – ‘I want to email myself an organizational chart?’

Mr Petrie: That came after the second interview process, after asking multiple times of Danni and Steve for access and getting no answer. I feel like I needed to defend myself because they weren’t giving me the tools to do it.

Mr Ward: So you just took it upon yourself to…?

Mr Petrie: Well, I’d done the same thing back in 2023 when I had Ian Hunter’s approval back then, because Steve and Danni weren’t talking to me and I wasn’t allowed to talk to anyone else. Who was going to give me permission?

[132]

I understand from this exchange that he accepted that he had not been authorised to do so in the 7 August meeting, which was the second interview. Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller did not give evidence to contradict that Mr Burke from the SDA made a request on 28 August that

[2026] FWC 2346

Mr Petrie could forward him Amazon material relating to the investigation.16 I do not consider that his original statement was dishonest but infer that he was confused about the dates and who made the request when giving his evidence and making his statement about events that had occurred many months before. As outlined above, I do not consider that these inconsistencies in Mr Petrie’s evidence were such as to warrant an adverse credit finding.

[133]

Whilst a breach of policy may give rise to valid reason for a dismissal, in the circumstances of this case, any breach was minor and has caused no damage to Amazon. Amazon points to an increased risk from ‘phishing’ However, Amazon has taken no steps to retrieve or require the destruction of any of the documents that Mr Petrie sent to himself or the SDA.

[134]

I conclude that the conduct of Mr Petrie in sending the emails, singularly or collectively, did not provide the Respondent with a sound, defensible or well-founded reason to dismiss Mr. Petrie.

Was there a valid reason for the dismissal of Mr. Petrie?

[135]

Having considered Mr Petrie’s conduct both individually and collectively, as found above on the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the Respondent had a sound, defensible and well-founded reason to dismiss Mr. Petrie. I do not consider that the Respondent’s decision to dismiss the Applicant was a proportionate response to the gravity of the Applicant’s conduct. I am therefore not satisfied that the Respondent had a valid reason to dismiss Mr. Petrie related to his conduct. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair.

Notification of reason (s 387(b)) and Opportunity to respond (s 387(c))

[136]

Mr. Petrie does not contend that he was not notified of the reason for his dismissal and I find accordingly. I consider this to be a neutral consideration.

[137]

However, he submits that the Respondent gave him no opportunity to respond to the reason for his termination. These submissions centre around the argument that Mr Petie was not given an opportunity to defend himself. It is said that allegations 3 and 4 were vague allegations alleging misconduct and when he requested further information in order to respond, that information was refused. He was also required to respond to letters of allegation quickly, often with 24 hours notice. It is argued that this was an insufficient amount of time to respond to numerous, serious allegations.

[138]

The Respondent contends that Mr. Petrie was notified of the reasons for his dismissal by way of the Dismissal Letter and also argues that Mr. Petrie was afforded an opportunity to respond to the reasons for his dismissal and was provided with multiple opportunities to respond to the allegations against him and the proposed termination of his employment.

[139]

Having considered the evidence regarding the communications to and from Mr Petrie, and the evidence of the meetings held regarding the allegations I am satisfied that Mr Petrie was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to his conduct. Whilst 24 hours was provided to attend meetings on several occasions, and in some circumstances, this would

[2026] FWC 2346

constitute a denial of a proper opportunity to respond, it would appear that Mr Petrie was given an opportunity to respond and did so. There is no evidence before me that he requested more time to provide a response or needed more time.

[140]

Section 387(c) is mainly directed at the opportunity given to an employee to respond, rather than the employer’s consideration of that response. Whilst I have some concerns in this regard, I consider that they are more appropriately considered when I turn to consider s.387(h).

Unreasonable refusal to allow a support person (s 387(d))

[141]

Mr. Petrie does not submit that he was not given a chance to attend a meeting accompanied by a support person. Having considered the evidence, I do not consider this to be a relevant consideration in this matter.

Warnings of unsatisfactory performance (s 387(e))

[142]

Mr Petrie was not dismissed on the basis of his performance, and I do not consider this to be a relevant factor in my consideration.

Size of enterprise and absence of human resource specialists or expertise (s 387(f) and (g))

[143]

Mr. Petrie does not submit that this is a relevant factor in my decision making. Presumably this is because of the rather large size of the enterprise and its dedicated human resource specialists. I consider these factors to be neutral or irrelevant to my consideration.

Other relevant matters (s 387(h))

Evidence and submissions

[144]

Mr. Petrie submits that the harshness of his dismissal is exacerbated by his personal and economic circumstances. At the time of his termination, he was the sole provider for his wife and three dependent children. Following his dismissal, his wife had to return to the workforce and then subsequently lost her employment. As previously mentioned, he was 54 years of age and lost the health care benefits provided by the Respondent for him and his family, on his dismissal. His personal circumstances include that he has a mortgage over his own home and has mortgages over some or all of his three investment properties (one of which was in rent arrears at the time of the hearing). Following his dismissal, the Applicant continued to have financial responsibilities including mortgage repayments, school and living expenses and dental and health care expenses. He has not been able to obtain work since his dismissal despite actively seeking that work.

[145]

The Applicant also argues that his dismissal lacked procedural fairness. Evidence was given by the Applicant and Mr Bulurda, Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller regarding the process adopted by the Respondent leading up to his dismissal.

[146]

That evidence showed that the process adopted by Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller was reasonably rigorous with allegations being put and then Mr Petrie’s responses considered (albeit

[2026] FWC 2346

within very short timeframes for Mr Petrie to prepare for meetings and prepare a response). Mr Bulurda gave evidence that he was not involved in the initial investigation into Mr Petrie’s conduct and was appointed as an independent reviewer to the matter on or around 17 September 2025, after the investigation into Mr Petrie’s conduct. He states that his role as reviewer was to review the investigation process and outcome independently, invite any further responses from Mr Petrie, and “confirm” the appropriate disciplinary outcome. Mr Bulurda stated that, following the show cause meeting, he reviewed the investigation outcome, Mr Petrie’s responses provided during the investigation and show cause meeting, and the relevant Amazon policies, before determining with Mr Obiegdu that termination was the appropriate next step.

[147]

No evidence is relied upon from Mr Obiegdu in these proceedings. The evidence discloses that Mr Bulurda was charged with the show cause process on 18 September 2025. The same day he attended a show cause meeting with Mr Petrie. Mr Petrie had sent his detailed response to Ms McCarty previously, but Mr Bulurda had not read it ahead of this meeting. Mr Petrie read it aloud in the meeting and then emailed it to Mr Bulurda and Mr Obiegdu on 25 September at approximately 1.44pm, less than two hours before the dismissal meeting. He read the material prepared by Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller in the approximately two hours between becoming involved in the process and attending the Show Cause Meeting.

[148]

In my view, Mr Bulurda’s evidence demonstrated that he had not properly reviewed or considered the investigation process, including the material relied upon by the Applicant or the Respondent, in determining the suitable outcome. I consider that the following procedural fairness deficiencies impacted on the fairness of the dismissal:

•

That Mr Bulurda did not consider it necessary to look at the full context of the Slack messages between Mr Trujillo and Mr Petrie before making a determination;17

•

That Mr Bulurda had not reviewed the emails that Mr Petrie had sent to himself and which Mr Bulurda relied upon to uphold Allegation 5 and dismiss Mr Petrie18 whilst conceding that some of the information that Mr Bulurda relied upon to uphold Allegation 5 and dismiss Mr Petrie was not, or may not be, confidential information;

•

That Mr Bulurda had not conducted a review of whether Mr Petrie had been trained on the policies that he was found to have breached;

•

That despite not knowing exactly what a SLAM machine is, how to service it or what the procedures are to service it, following alleged discussions with unnamed engineers, he formed a view “based on the investigation” and conclusions of Ms Qayyum and Mr Miller that Mr Petrie had not followed the correct procedure despite making no “independent enquiries” regarding the correct procedure for Mr Petrie to follow;

•

That Mr Bulurda did not interrogate the information in relation to Allegation 5 in relation to the alleged confidentiality of the documents, because Mr Petrie confirmed he did send information to his personal email;19

•

Mr Bulurda did not independently consider whether the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2020 would qualify as a confidential document or whether Mr Petrie’s work day notes were confidential to Amazon;20

[2026] FWC 2346

•

Mr Bulurda had not read the confidentiality communication and social media policy or the electronic communication policy21 before concluding that Mr Petrie had breached these policies and that he should be dismissed.

[149]

Mr Bulurda also gave some evidence that I do not consider to be credible, that he checked with an unnamed engineer regarding some technical aspects of the allegation and read the “well known” Disciplinary Policy “on the policies”. His evidence also changed during the course of giving evidence regarding whether he had reviewed all of the Slack message exchanges between Mr Trujillo and Mr Petrie before deciding to dismiss Mr Petrie and whether he had read all of the relevant policies at the time that he made the decision to dismiss Mr Petrie. Ultimately, I find that Mr Bulurda did not review all of the policies relied upon to dismiss Mr Petrie or the SLACK messages that formed part of the context of the select exchanges that were relied upon to dismiss Mr Petrie.

[150]

Mr Bulurda was accused by Counsel for the Applicant of not having applied a forensic mind or thought to the decisions made in the show cause letter, to which Mr Bulurda’s rejoinder was that his role was to ‘review’ any additional information brought in addition to the investigation process. I consider that this is globally demonstrative of Mr Bulurda not having made appropriate enquiries about matters Mr Petrie raised in his response. One such example was that Mr Bulurda considered Mr Petrie’s visual check to be improper. On being pressed by Counsel for the Applicant, he agreed with Counsel that this was on the basis of what Mr Miller and Ms Qayyum had placed in the show cause letter.22

[151]

The Respondent makes submissions in relation to various matters that it submits fall within my consideration under s 387(h). It submits that I should take into account that the Applicant was trained and experienced in Amazon’s maintenance processes, record-keeping expectations, and confidentiality requirements, his alleged history of inappropriate workplace behaviour towards other employees including a history of allegedly engaging inappropriately in Slack communications with his colleagues and inaccuracies and integrity concerns regarding work under completion, together with Amazon’s legitimate interest in ensuring that Technicians strictly adhere to integrity and safety-critical processes and maintaining appropriate workplace behaviour and communication standards.

[152]

It also submits that any suggestion that the investigation was retaliation for concerns raised by Mr Petrie in May 2025 should be rejected and that I should consider that dismissal was the appropriate and proportionate response to the Applicant’s misconduct including his dishonesty.

Consideration

[153]

Section 387(h) of the Act provides the Commission with a broad scope to consider any other matters it considers relevant.

[154]

The Applicant contends that his dismissal was devoid of procedural fairness. Deprivation of procedural fairness may render a dismissal unfair even where circumstances otherwise justify dismissal.23 I have previously considered whether the Applicant was notified of the reason for his dismissal and given a proper opportunity to respond. However, I consider that there were other procedural fairness deficiencies relating to his dismissal.

[2026] FWC 2346

[155]

The investigation and decision-making process adopted at Amazon is described by Ms Qayyum in her statement as including the following steps:

•

Once the investigation is complete, all materials are handed over to two independent reviewers. One independent reviewer is drawn from Operations, and the other from HR. In this matter, the independent reviewers were Bogdan Bulurda, Operations Manager and Chubie Obiegbu, HR Business Partner. They received the investigation file from Mr Miller and Ms Qayyum and then managed the show cause process.

•

The independent reviewers, having regard to the matters established in the investigation, determine next steps including undergoing a show cause process. The reviewers then manage the show cause process, and having regard to any matters raised by the employee in response to the show cause process, proceed to termination, if appropriate.

[156]

In Serco Citizen Services Pty Limited v Parsons [2025] FCAFC 83 at [83] Collier ACJ, Needham and Wheatley JJ considered, in the context of an appeal over a decision regarding a General Protections involving dismissal claim, an appropriate standard to be applied to decision-making related to terminations of employment:

“It is a reasonably common position that a decision-maker will adopt a draft statement of reasons, which by doing so, then becomes the decision-maker’s reasons for decision. In such circumstances, the decision-maker is required to do more than merely “rubber stamp” the draft reasons. The decision-maker must engage in an active intellectual process to adopt and make the decision, which is encapsulated in the draft reasons. By doing so, the decision-maker accepts that the draft reasons accurately reflect that person’s actual reasons for the decision made.”

[157]

Even though Mr Petrie was given the opportunity to provide a response to the allegations, there is no evidence before me which would lead me to conclude that the decision-maker Mr Bulurda, fairly and actively engaged in an active intellectual process to consider the Applicant’s response or the factual and legal substratum to the allegations and findings that had been substantiated by Mr Miller and Ms Qayyum. It was apparent from my findings in paragraph 145-149 above that he did not. The absence of an independent and critical assessment of Mr Petrie and the Respondent’s positions meant that Mr Bulurda, although he denied this, effectively rubber stamped the assessments of others, without critically assessing whether Mr Petrie’s conduct justified his dismissal or breached the relevant policies relied upon. This was a serious failure on behalf of the Respondent.

[158]

The process adopted by the Respondent supports the conclusion that his dismissal was unfair.

[159]

The Applicant submitted that he had not been able to obtain other employment since his dismissal. I have factored into my consideration that the Applicant has been out of work since his dismissal. I am satisfied that the dismissal has had significant negative economic effects on Mr. Petrie, who had dependent children and significant expenses including mortgages over his own home and investment properties. His inability to get work led to his wife having to re-enter the workforce.

[2026] FWC 2346

[160]

I have also considered his age and that he had been employed with Amazon for approximately four years. These factors weigh in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair.

[161]

The Respondent attempted to rely on some alleged performance or conduct issues that Ms Qayyum had identified whilst reviewing Mr Petrie’s Human Resources file. These concerns related to previous feedback provided to Mr Petrie in relation to incomplete work orders and alleged inappropriate commentary and statements made by Mr Petrie, including on Slack, to his Shift Leader and to other staff. Mr Petrie’s evidence was that many of these matters had not been raised with him. He also elaborated further on the context of these previous concerns. He also raises that in relation to one of complaints raised against him, the Area Manager who called the meeting, Mr Burbridge, stated that “this is a crazy complaint, there’s no need to go any further.” In relation to those matters that had been raised with him I am satisfied with his explanation of his conduct. There was no evidence before me that he had been subject to any formal performance concerns, warnings or disciplinary action. Mr Miller says that Mr Petrie had an attitude problem, was combative, and resisted direction and supervisory oversight yet there was no evidence before me that these matters were raised with him by Mr Miller (other than informally on one occasion) or subject to any training or performance improvement measures. I do not find that evidence compelling.

[162]

There was evidence from several of the Respondent’s employees, including Mr Trujillo and Mr Kapote, to the effect that the Applicant was a “good worker”. I find that he had been given additional duties as a trainer and I infer that this was in recognition of his skills and/or experience. I have considered these matters as part of my overall assessment.

[163]

I am persuaded that Mr Petrie is willing to change his approach to engaging with Mr Trujillo in the future. Mr Petrie gave evidence in the hearing that he had already apologised to Mr Trujillo directly for the exchanges between them and that he is happy to approach his communications with Mr Trujillo differently. I note that Mr Trujillo has also been spoken to by the Respondent in relation to appropriate communication. I also consider that Mr Petrie is now abundantly aware that visual checks will not be sufficient to meet the maintenance requirements of Amazon and that he is not to send himself emails again to his personal email address, other than in accordance with Amazon policies.

[164]

Ms Qayyum’s evidence was that she was aware from Amazon records that Mr Petrie received training in the Discipline Policy, the Electronic Communication Policy and the Confidentiality, Communications and Social Media Policy and had annual security and confidentiality training. Amazon did not put any evidence on demonstrating his training record. Mr Petrie’s evidence was that he would get limited time for training and that this would be done in stolen moments on the shop floor. He acknowledged, under cross-examination, that he had likely been trained on the Security Awareness and Secure Communications Policy/Policies and the Harassment Policy. I have balanced the evidence of Mr Petrie with the fact that the Respondent put on evidence that on at least one occasion, Mr Petrie was given a decreased workload over a particular weekend in order to get his training done. I also accept that he had been trained and was experienced in Amazon’s maintenance processes and confidentiality requirements.

[2026] FWC 2346

[165]

I also consider that the Respondent’s failure to manage the escalating tension between Mr Petrie and Mr Trujillo had a role to play in the message exchanges between the pair that led to the Applicant’s dismissal. Mr Petrie and Mr Miller’s recollections vary over the exact nature of the concerns that Mr Petrie raised on or around 17 July regarding Mr Trujillo’s conduct towards him. However, what is clear is that at a minimum Mr Petrie raised his concerns regarding Mr Trujillo’s use of the Slack messaging service towards him. Mr Petrie’s concerns about Mr Trujillo’s approach to supervision using SLACK and communication style had not been managed and I find that no active attempts had been undertaken to assist the two employees to overcome their differences and work together respectfully. In my view, this contributed to the circumstances of the dismissal. I note that Mr Trujillo has since been spoken to informally in October 2025 by Mr Miller regarding his communication practices, specifically the manner in which he delivered feedback to technicians via Slack, and Mr Trujillo was reminded of Amazon’s expectations regarding professional and appropriate workplace communication.

[166]

These matters weigh in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair. Ultimately, even if I am wrong on my conclusions regarding valid reason, I would find that these matters alone justified a finding that Mr Petrie was unfairly dismissed and award the remedy that I award below.

Is the Commission satisfied that the dismissal of the Applicant was harsh, unjust or unreasonable?

[167]

I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in section 387 as relevant. I must consider and give due weight to each as a fundamental element in determining whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and therefore an unfair dismissal.24

[168]

Having considered each of the matters specified in section 387 of the Act, and weighed them, I am satisfied that the dismissal of Mr. Petrie was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. I do not consider that there was a valid reason for the dismissal. Mr Petrie was notified of the reason for his dismissal and given an opportunity to respond. Many other factors are neutral or irrelevant to my consideration. There were significant procedural fairness deficiencies in the dismissal process and the consequences of the dismissal were harsh. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr. Petrie was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of section 385 of the Act.

[169]

Having determined that the Applicant made an application for an order granting a remedy under s.394 of the Act, was a person protected from unfair dismissal and was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of s.385, I will now turn to consider what remedy, if any, to award to him.

[170]

Section 390 of the Act provides that in these circumstances I may order reinstatement or the payment of compensation. I must not order compensation unless I am satisfied that, amongst other things, reinstatement of Mr Petrie is inappropriate.

[171]

Pursuant to s.577 of the Act, the Commission must perform its functions and exercise its power in a manner that is fair and just and promotes harmonious and co-operative workplace

[2026] FWC 2346

relations and must take into account the objects of the Act, and equity, good conscience and the merits of the matter.

[172]

The Full Bench of the Commission in Nguyen v Vietnamese Community in Australia t/a

Vietnamese Community Ethnic School South Australia Chapter25 said:

[10] Subsection 390(3) underscores the primacy of reinstatement as a remedy for an unfair dismissal as the discretion to order a remedy of compensation may only be exercised if the Commission is satisfied that reinstatement is ‘inappropriate’. Further, one of the objects of Part 3-2 of Chapter 3, in which the unfair dismissal provisions appear, is “to provide remedies if a dismissal is found to be unfair, with an emphasis on reinstatement”. We would observe that to describe reinstatement as the ‘primary remedy’, is to simply recognise that reinstatement is the first, perhaps even the foremost, remedy under the Act. The relevant question in determining whether to grant the remedy of reinstatement of an employee in relation to a dismissal that is found to have been ‘unfair’ is whether reinstatement is appropriate in the particular case.

[173]

The power to order reinstatement is “a very drastic one”26. As the High Court observed in Blackadder,27 such an order is an intrusion into the personal relationship of employer and employee, and an intrusion that is “deliberate and envisioned by the Act” (at [28]).

[174]

However, as the Full Court in Perkins v Grace Worldwide Australia Pty Ltd28 observed, the employment relationship is capable of withstanding some friction and doubts:

“Each case must be decided on its own merits. There may be cases where any ripple on the surface of the employment relationship will destroy its viability. For example the life of the employer, or some other person or persons, might depend on the reliability of the terminated employee, and the employer has a reasonable doubt about that reliability. There may be a case where there is a question about the discretion of an employee who is required to handle highly confidential information. But those are relatively uncommon situations. In most cases, the employment relationship is capable of withstanding some friction and doubts. Trust and confidence are concepts of degree. It is rare for any human being to have total trust in another. What is important in the employment relationship is that there be sufficient trust to make the relationship viable and productive. Whether that standard is reached in any particular case must depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. And in assessing that question, it is appropriate to consider the rationality of any attitude taken by a party.”

[175]

A Full Bench of the Commission has helpfully identified the following propositions relevant to the impact of a loss of trust and confidence on the appropriateness of an order for reinstatement:29

•

Whether there has been a loss of trust and confidence is a relevant consideration in determining whether reinstatement is appropriate but, while it will often be an important consideration, it is not the sole criterion or even a necessary one in determining whether or not to order reinstatement.

•

Each case must be decided on its own facts, including the nature of the employment concerned. There may be a limited number of circumstances in which any ripple on the surface of the employment relationship will destroy its viability but in most cases the employment relationship is capable of withstanding some friction and doubts.

[2026] FWC 2346

•

An allegation that there has been a loss of trust and confidence must be soundly and rationally based, and it is important to carefully scrutinise a claim that reinstatement is inappropriate because of a loss of confidence in the employee. The onus of establishing a loss of trust and confidence rests on the party making the assertion.

•

The reluctance of an employer to shift from a view, despite a tribunal’s assessment that the employee was not guilty of serious wrongdoing or misconduct, does not provide a- sound basis to conclude that the relationship of trust and confidence is irreparably damaged or destroyed.

•

The fact that it may be difficult or embarrassing for an employer to be required to re-employ an employee whom the employer believed to have been guilty of serious wrongdoing or misconduct are not necessarily indicative of a loss of trust and confidence so as to make restoring the employment relationship inappropriate.

[176]

The Full Bench concluded that, “[u]ltimately, the question is whether there can be a sufficient level of trust and confidence restored to make the relationship viable and productive. In making this assessment, it is appropriate to consider the rationality of any attitude taken by a party.”30

[177]

It was submitted by Counsel for the Respondent that trust and confidence has mutually broken down. The Respondent suggests that Mr Petrie has lost trust in his employer, relying on various submissions that he made during the show cause process and these proceedings. I reject this submission.

[178]

I am satisfied that Mr Petrie has a generally positive attitude toward reinstatement. From as early as his response provided during the investigation process, notwithstanding expressing his concerns for the process, Mr Petrie stated that “I enjoy my job at Amazon, and I am disappointed and saddened about how things have developed. I genuinely hope you are able to review all matters of concern that I have raised around the allegations and process, and I am able to return to my role as soon as possible.” Mr Petrie further gave oral evidence stating “I love what I do with Amazon, yes. I’ve helped them a lot.” In my view, Mr Petrie has been fervent in his desire to return to Amazon, despite his misgivings about the show cause and dismissal process. He has even expressed his willingness to work in any team or building or even go to work in Perth for three months in order to get back to work at Amazon.

[179]

The Respondent submits that the Respondent has lost trust and confidence in Mr Petrie. it relies on the statements of Mr Bulurda, Ms Qayyum, Mr Trujillo and Mr Miller to support this submission. I have considered all of these statements in reaching my conclusions on what remedy, if any, Mr Petrie should be awarded but have given less weight to the concerns expressed by Mr Bulurda given that he has not managed Mr Petrie, and my concerns regarding his evidence. Ms Qayyum’s concerns regarding the potential reinstatement of Mr Petrie are, in summary, that the findings of misconduct that led to his dismissal and previous “behavioural concerns” towards other members of staff mean that reinstatement would be inappropriate and that a safe and productive working relationship cannot be restored. I have considered and addressed these previous ‘behavioural concerns’ above. I do not consider that they tell against Mr Petrie’s reinstatement. I have given specific attention in these reasons to the evidence of Mr Miller and Mr Trujillo, given the closer working relationship Mr Petrie would potentially enjoy with Mr Trujillo and Mr Miller if reinstated.

[2026] FWC 2346

[180]

At a high level, Mr Trujillo states he would have serious concerns about whether Mr Petrie would comply with work requirements (e.g. maintenance of records and appropriate SLAM checks) on reinstatement. Mr Trujillo particularly emphasises the interpersonal issues of their relationship, including that Mr Petrie’s communication manner was disruptive, that Mr Trujillo felt undermined, and that if Mr Petrie were reinstated, he would not feel comfortable continuing to work in the same team as him and would request to transfer to another site. Mr Miller invokes similar concerns in relation to a breakdown in trust that Mr Petrie will perform his duties safely and honestly, and expresses his loss of confidence in Mr Petrie’s ability to communicate respectfully with colleagues. Mr Miller states that should Mr Petrie be reinstated to BWU2, he would not be able to avoid day to day interaction with Mr Trujillo, Mr Kapote, Mr Pickering, Mr Burbidge or Mr Miller himself, as their departments are said to interact significantly. Significantly, the Respondent states that Mr Petrie has previously also had some issues with Mr Pickering and Mr Burbidge.

[181]

The Respondent submits that should Mr Petrie be reinstated, he must be put back into his precise position prior to termination, or be reappointed to a position no less favourable. Mr Miller gave evidence that there are no equivalent positions open at other Amazon warehouses that are as well remunerated as the one that Mr Petrie held prior to his dismissal.

[182]

It is evident to me that Mr Petrie and Mr Trujillo did not enjoy a particularly friendly relationship, harking back to as early as 2023. I note that Mr Petrie and Mr Trujillo only began working together directly from April 2025, with Mr Trujillo stating that he had worked occasional shifts and sporadically with Mr Petrie. Mr Petrie expressed concern in his show cause response that Mr Miller was made aware of Mr Trujillo’s personal issues with Mr Petrie, however, there was no attempt made by Amazon to mediate or repair the relationship. Mr Trujillo was given informal coaching regarding his communication practices and manner of delivering feedback in or around October 2025.

[183]

Mr Petrie and Mr Trujillo began working together more frequently from April 2025, with Mr Petrie first receiving the allegations against him by the end of July 2025. I consider this to be a relatively short time frame where the pair properly worked together. Mr Petrie’s evidence was that they worked together for approximately 8 shifts prior to his dismissal. Whilst I acknowledge Mr Trujillo and Mr Miller’s concerns regarding the establishment of a sound and respectful working relationship, I do not consider the evidence of the parties to establish more than what appears to me to be some friction and doubts between the parties. The exchanges that Mr Petrie was dismissed for ran across a period of six days and he was given no warning regarding his use of Slack or exchanges with Mr Petrie prior to his dismissal. Mr Petrie has provided oral evidence that he has apologised to Mr Trujillo personally for the conversations and the way they were received by Mr Trujillo, and stated that he is happy to adjust his approach with Mr Trujillo. Mr Trujillo has similarly received counselling on communication. Mr Trujillo has stated that he considers Mr Petrie technically skilled, which implies at least some lingering trust in Mr Petrie’s ability to perform his technical work. I consider that this employment relationship is capable of restoration.

[184]

Mr Miller maintains that the investigation confirmed on 8 July 2025 that Mr Petrie recorded tasks as complete without physically attending the machines, thereby falsifying maintenance records, which Mr Miller states has ‘irreparably damaged trust and confidence’ in

[2026] FWC 2346

Mr Petrie. Mr Miller also submits that Mr Petrie’s behaviour toward Mr Trujillo and attitude generally has diminished his confidence in Mr Petrie to be able to communicate respectfully with his colleagues (particularly in regards to Mr Petrie’s ‘pen licence’ comment), as well as Mr Petrie forwarding multiple emails to his external (personal) email address. Having reached the conclusions I have in respect of the allegations above and the previous behavioural concerns now relied upon by the Respondent, I do not consider that these concerns necessarily represent a sound and rational basis for the irreparable loss of trust and confidence by Mr Miller. I am confident that Mr Petrie will perform his maintenance functions, and engage in communications, in accordance with Amazon policies. In this regard, I have had regard to the evidence of many of the Respondent’s witnesses that Mr Petrie was a good maintenance worker.

[185]

To the extent that Mr Miller submits that the concerns related to Mr Petrie involved ‘more serious…repeated behaviours across multiple domains and could not be resolved through coaching alone’, I reject this. I note that Mr Miller expounds elsewhere in his statement that Mr Petrie over-booked time on multiple work orders between 8 July 2025 and 13 July 2025, and this was inconsistent with relevant Amazon policies that required integrity in record-keeping, among other things. I acknowledge that this formed the basis of Allegation 4, which was neutrally considered by Amazon and not relied on as a ground of termination of Mr Petrie. Therefore, to any extent that Mr Miller may subjectively consider this an example of repeated conduct alluded to in paragraph 75 of his statement by Mr Petrie engendering a loss of trust, I also do not consider this a sound or rational basis for this loss. What am I left with, in respect of the alleged serious misconduct by Mr Petrie, are otherwise isolated incidents which I have determined do not provide a valid reason for his dismissal. I also note that Mr Petrie has resolved to amend his communication style with Mr Trujillo.

[186]

Having considered the evidence and submissions on this matter, I have determined that, pursuant to s.391 of the Act, it would be appropriate to order that Mr Petrie be reinstated to his former position. For the same reasons that Mr Petrie should not have been dismissed, I am satisfied that Mr Petrie’s reinstated employment is capable of withstanding some friction and “doubts.”

[187]

I have also determined that it is appropriate to make an order that maintains the continuity of Mr Petrie’s employment with the Respondent and an order, pursuant to s.391(3) of the Act, that the Respondent pay to Mr Petrie an amount for the remuneration lost by Mr Petrie because of the dismissal.

[188]

In order to determine an amount for the purposes of making such an order I am required to consider:

•

the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for reinstatement; and

•

the amount of any remuneration reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for reinstatement and the actual reinstatement.

[2026] FWC 2346

[189]

An order to restore lost pay pursuant to s.391(3) is a discretionary one and the Commission may take into account all of the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the employee that led to the dismissal.31

[190]

If an order for remuneration foregone is reduced because of the employee’s conduct, the reduction ought to be proportionate to the conduct and any payment in lieu of notice of termination must be considered in the calculation of lost earnings.32 I have not determined to reduce the amount of remuneration foregone on account of Mr Petrie’s conduct.

[191]

As such I will make an order, once I have received confirmation from the parties as to the appropriate amounts, requiring the Respondent to pay an amount compensating Mr Petrie for remuneration lost as a result of the dismissal, calculated as follows:

(a)

the amount Mr Petrie would have received as ordinary time earnings but for the dismissal;

(b)

MINUS any payment made by the Respondent in lieu of notice;

(c)

MINUS any remuneration received by the Applicant (if any) as income from employment or other work since his dismissal.

[192]

I will make an Order33 that Mr Petrie be reinstated to the position in which he was employed immediately before his dismissal by no later than 7 August 2026 and an order that maintains Mr Petrie’s continuity of employment.

[193]

I also make the following directions for the filing of material by the parties in order to facilitate the making of an order for remuneration foregone, pursuant to s.391(3) of the Act:

(a)

Parties are directed to confer on the calculation of the remuneration foregone following the methodology in paragraph 191 above.

(b)

If the amount payable is agreed between the parties by 9 July 2026, the Applicant is to advise the Commission of the agreed amount by 4:00pm on that day;

(c)

If the amount payable is not agreed between the parties by 9 July 2026, each party must file and serve submissions and any supporting evidence by no later than 23 July 2026 in relation to:

the amount each party contends is the correct amount the Commission should order;

ii.

the amount Mr Petrie would have received as ordinary time earnings but for the dismissal;

iii.

the amount of any payment made by the Respondent to Mr Petrie in lieu of notice;

iv.

the amount of remuneration earned by Mr Petrie from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the Order for reinstatement; and

[2026] FWC 2346

the amount of any remuneration reasonably likely to be earned by Mr Petrie during the period between the making of the Order for reinstatement and the actual reinstatement.”

Petrie v Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2346 delivered 25 June 2026 per Grayson DP