FWC Orders Mars to Reinstate Team Leader After Finding HR Investigation Was Too Narrow

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has reinforced an important principle for employers conducting workplace investigations: disciplinary decisions must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence, rather than a narrow focus on one employee’s role or seniority.

In a recent unfair dismissal decision involving confectionery manufacturer Mars, the FWC ordered the reinstatement of a long-serving production team leader after concluding that the employer’s investigation unfairly attributed responsibility for a food safety incident to a single supervisor while overlooking broader procedural failures involving multiple employees.

Background

The case arose after a forklift punctured an approximately 850-kilogram container of mints at Mars’ Sydney manufacturing facility. Following the incident, the team leader and a food safety specialist agreed that approximately half of the affected product should be discarded to manage potential contamination risks.

However, only around 80 kilograms of product were ultimately disposed of the following day. Mars subsequently determined that the team leader had failed to ensure the agreed course of action was implemented and dismissed her for serious misconduct, alleging significant breaches of the company’s food safety and quality procedures.

The employee challenged her dismissal before the Fair Work Commission.

The Commission’s Reasoning

Deputy President Tony Slevin found that the dismissal lacked a valid reason because the evidence did not establish that the team leader had directed anyone to depart from the agreed disposal plan.

Importantly, the Commission accepted that the employee genuinely believed the agreed instructions had been carried out. On that basis, there was no reason for her to take further action to verify implementation.

The decision identified significant inconsistencies between what the relevant employees agreed should occur; what actually occurred on the factory floor; and what was subsequently recorded within Mars’ internal systems.

Deputy President Slevin observed that multiple steps contained within the applicable food safety procedure were simply not followed. Rather than demonstrating an isolated failure by one supervisor, the evidence revealed broader procedural breakdowns involving several individuals.

A central feature of the decision was the Commission’s criticism of the employer’s disciplinary investigation.

During the investigation, the team leader provided a detailed explanation identifying numerous failures by different employees throughout the incident response. Rather than treating those matters as issues requiring further investigation, the HR manager concluded that the employee was attempting to shift blame and avoid responsibility.

The Commission rejected that characterisation.

Deputy President Slevin found that the investigation became overly focused on establishing the team leader’s culpability instead of objectively examining the wider circumstances. Once the employee’s response raised credible evidence of procedural failures by others, the investigation should have expanded to determine whether the organisation’s food safety procedures had been properly followed across the entire incident.

Instead, the investigator reached an early conclusion that the team leader alone should face disciplinary action and even be offered the opportunity to resign. The Commission considered this approach demonstrated an unduly narrow investigation and gave the HR manager’s evidence little weight when assessing whether the employment relationship had broken down.

The decision also provides useful guidance on accountability within management roles.

Employers frequently expect supervisors and managers to maintain higher standards because of their leadership responsibilities. The Commission did not dispute that principle. However, it emphasised that leadership accountability cannot substitute for evidence demonstrating personal wrongdoing.

Although the team leader occupied a supervisory position, the Commission concluded that responsibility for the incident could not fairly be attributed solely to her where several employees contributed to the procedural failures and there was no evidence that she knowingly authorised a departure from the agreed food safety response.

The Commission also considered the employee’s 23 years of unblemished service, finding that the circumstances did not demonstrate an irreparable breakdown in trust and confidence. Reinstatement was therefore considered both appropriate and practical.

Implications and Key Takeaways

This decision serves as an important reminder that workplace investigations must remain open-minded throughout the disciplinary process.

Where evidence suggests multiple employees, systemic issues or procedural deficiencies may have contributed to an incident, investigators should resist narrowing their inquiry prematurely. Focusing exclusively on the most senior employee or the person with ultimate responsibility risks overlooking relevant evidence and may undermine the fairness of the investigation.

Employers should also ensure investigation reports accurately reflect the employee’s response. Characterising an employee’s explanation as an attempt to avoid responsibility without properly testing the substance of their account may expose disciplinary decisions to challenge.

From a governance perspective, the case highlights the importance of distinguishing between individual misconduct and broader organisational failures. Serious workplace incidents often result from a combination of communication failures, procedural non-compliance and inadequate implementation rather than the conduct of a single individual.

For employers and managers the decision suggests that investigations should follow the evidence, not assumptions about hierarchy or accountability. Decision-makers should remain prepared to widen the scope of an investigation where new information emerges, particularly where it indicates systemic failures or the involvement of multiple employees.

For employees, the decision confirms that supervisory responsibility does not automatically equate to disciplinary liability. Employers must establish, on the evidence, that the employee personally engaged in misconduct or failed to discharge their responsibilities in a manner that justifies dismissal.

Ultimately, the Commission’s decision reinforces that procedural fairness extends beyond giving an employee an opportunity to respond. It also requires employers to genuinely consider that response, investigate competing explanations, and ensure disciplinary outcomes reflect the totality of the evidence rather than a predetermined conclusion.

If you have questions about how this decision may affect you as an employee or employer, please contact Nick Stevens, Evelyn Rivera, or Dragana Prtenjak.