Workplace fight and failure to disengage justified dismissal
A Fair Work Commission decision has reinforced that fighting connected with work can provide a valid reason for dismissal, even where another person initiates the aggression.
What happened?
The applicant in the matter had worked for Linfox as a truck driver since 2021. His duties included delivering goods to Coles supermarkets.
The Fair Work Commission heard that on 24 December 2025, he parked his truck across a road near the delivery dock at a Coles site in Campbellfield. A member of the public sounded his horn, approached and aggressively demanded that the truck be moved.
The two men exchanged words. The other driver then appeared to turn his vehicle around to leave. Instead of allowing the interaction to end, the applicant approached the passenger-side window. After further offensive comments, he walked around to the driver’s side.
The driver left his vehicle and shoved the applicant who responded by punching him. A physical fight continued for more than a minute and required at least five Coles employees and members of the public to intervene. The incident was captured by several CCTV cameras.
Following an investigation, Linfox dismissed the applicant for serious misconduct. It relied on prohibitions against fighting and conduct endangering health and safety in its enterprise agreement, Workplace Behaviour Policy and “Red Book”.
The employee’s arguments
In support of his unfair dismissal claim in the Commission, the applicant accepted that he had breached Linfox’s policies but argued that dismissal was disproportionate. He said the incident was isolated and out of character, that he had been provoked and that he acted in self-defence.
He also pointed to his previously unblemished record, the financial and psychological consequences of losing his employment and his limited employment history outside the transport industry.
Why the dismissal was upheld
The Commission accepted that the other driver behaved aggressively, used offensive language and initiated physical contact by shoving the applicant.
However, the CCTV evidence showed that the applicant had several opportunities to disengage. When the vehicle appeared to be leaving, he could have returned to his truck, locked himself in the cabin, contacted Linfox or sought help from staff inside the loading dock. Instead, he approached the departing vehicle and then moved to the driver’s side after being challenged. The Commission found that these deliberate actions escalated the situation.
Although the applicant’s initial punch might arguably have been a proportionate act of self-defence, his conduct did not end there. The Commissioner heard the applicant continued fighting after he could have withdrawn and even after another employee attempted to intervene.
The absence of serious injury did not reduce the gravity of the conduct. Commissioner Fox observed that the fact nobody was badly injured was a matter of luck. Employees and members of the public who tried to stop the fight were placed at genuine risk.
The Commission considered the applicant had been clearly informed of the allegations, given an opportunity to respond and permitted a support person during the disciplinary discussions. His personal circumstances and good employment history did not outweigh the seriousness of the conduct.