HR Heartbeat: Training or termination? When safety’s on the line, firing by text? Just don’t and…

Welcome to HR Heartbeat, where we look at the week’s most pressing HR and employment relations stories. With over 20 years’ experience in professional services, I give my opinion on current trends impacting your business, as well as my own personal commentary on all things HR and employment relations.

Training or termination? When safety’s on the line

In a recent case, a heavy vehicle driver was dismissed after two unsecured bins launched off her truck on a Sydney motorway. Her defence? Insufficient practical training and mixed messages from management about securing loads.

The Commission disagreed. Despite her claims of unclear instructions, she had completed theoretical training, received a comprehensive manual, and attended a load restraint course. And, crucially, she admitted to not checking that the load was properly strapped—an obligation she acknowledged as part of her licence conditions.

The FWC found her dismissal valid, emphasising that public safety must come first. The fact no one was hurt was sheer luck.

This isn’t just a reminder to provide training. It’s a reminder to document it clearly, make sure it’s fit-for-purpose, and ensure managers are aligned in their instructions. Disputes over who said what are avoidable when your safety protocols are written, acknowledged, and consistently reinforced.

At BrightHR, we see employers navigate these waters every day—and with a proper audit trail and training logs, they do so confidently. That’s the real value of proactive HR.

Firing by text? Just don’t.

Speaking of confidence—let’s talk about how not to manage conflict. A 10-year employee requested a long-overdue pay rise. His boss responded… by firing him via text message.

Yes, really.

The Fair Work Commission ruled the dismissal unfair, finding no valid reason and no procedural fairness. The employer, in financial difficulty, had argued that they couldn’t afford compensation and asked to pay in small instalments. The FWC said no—but compromised slightly by allowing a six-week instalment plan.

This case illustrates a lesson I’ve shared more times than I can count: even when tensions run high, process matters. Employees must be given a chance to respond to performance issues, and dismissals must follow fair procedure—especially for long-serving staff.

When managers allow frustration to drive decision-making, it not only damages employee trust but often ends up costing far more—financially and reputationally.

It’s why we work so closely with businesses to offer practical advice in the moment. The heat of a salary dispute isn’t the time to improvise. It’s the time to pause and pick up the phone (preferably to someone who understands employment relations).

Casual workloads: pay for every task?

Finally, a landmark decision from the Federal Court has clarified a long-disputed grey area in academia: whether marking assessments falls within a casual lecturer’s standard hourly rate or should be paid separately.

The Court sided with the university, affirming that marking is covered under the casual basic lecture rate—provided it’s tied directly to the lectures delivered. The exception? If the assessments were submitted late, or for students not taught by the lecturer—those still warrant extra pay.

This might seem niche, but it highlights a broader truth: under many awards, the devil is in the detail. Knowing the exact scope of “associated working time” or “reasonable duties” can make the difference between compliant pay and an expensive claim.

And if you’re unsure where your obligations start and end, now’s the time to review your contracts, job descriptions, and pay structures. Clear expectations and correct classification of duties can save you more than just admin time—they can save you from legal headaches.

And that’s a wrap from me. Tune in next time for my take on the latest headlines and
employment law stories, helping keep your business ahead!