When something goes wrong at work, employers are often under pressure to identify who is responsible.
But a workplace investigation is supposed to uncover what actually happened—not simply find someone to blame.
A recent Fair Work Commission decision, in which Hall Payne Lawyers represented the successful employee, is an important reminder that employers cannot ignore broader workplace failures, focus on a single employee, and then rely on a flawed investigation to justify dismissal.
In McFadden v Mars Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2772, Deputy President Slevin ordered the reinstatement of a Mars Australia Team Leader with more than 23 years of unblemished service after finding her dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
The decision reinforces a fundamental principle of Australian employment law: before dismissing an employee, an employer must conduct a fair investigation that genuinely considers all of the available evidence—even where that evidence points beyond the employee being investigated.
A workplace incident led to dismissal
The case arose after a forklift punctured a container of peppermint mints at Mars Australia’s Asquith manufacturing facility, creating a potential food safety risk.
The Team Leader and a Quality and Food Safety Specialist agreed on how the affected product should be managed and a direction was provided to staff in accordance with that agreed position.
However, what ultimately occurred differed entirely from the agreed position. Other employees handled the product differently, records entered into Mars’ electronic systems did not accurately reflect what had occurred, and several steps required under the company’s own food safety procedures were either completed incorrectly or not completed at all.
Following an internal investigation, Mars concluded the Team Leader was responsible for those failures and dismissed her for misconduct.
The investigation focused too narrowly
Deputy President Slevin accepted that the food safety process had not been followed correctly.
However, the Commission found responsibility for those failures did not rest with one person.
When the employee responded to the allegations, she identified the numerous procedural failures attributable to other employees. Rather than expanding the investigation to examine those issues, the employer continued to focus almost exclusively on whether she should be disciplined.
That became the critical issue in the case.
The Commission accepted that workplace procedures had broken down. What it rejected was Mars’ decision to attribute those failures to one employee without properly investigating the conduct of everyone else involved.
The decision also found there was an element of prejudgment in the disciplinary process. Before the investigation had concluded—and before the employee’s detailed response had been properly considered—Mars had already offered her the opportunity to resign.
Those findings significantly undermined the fairness of the disciplinary process.
A fair process requires more than asking for a response
Many employers assume that procedural fairness simply requires notifying an employee of allegations, giving them an opportunity to respond and allowing a support person to attend meetings.
This decision demonstrates that fairness requires much more.
Once the employee raised credible evidence that broader procedural failures had contributed to the incident, the investigation should have followed that evidence wherever it led.
Instead, the Commission found the investigation remained fixed on one employee. That ultimately proved fatal to the employer’s case.
There was no valid reason for dismissal
Under the Fair Work Act, an employer must have a valid reason before dismissing an employee which, in this instance, Deputy President Slevin found was lacking.
Summarising his conclusions, Deputy President Slevin said, in relation to the dismissal:
“It was unreasonable because there was no valid reason as Ms McFadden’s conduct did not justify dismissal. It was unjust because Ms McFadden was targeted for breaches of a workplace procedure in circumstances where there was substantial non-compliance with the procedure by others and those breaches were not investigated. There was also an element of prejudgment in investigation.”
Those findings are an important reminder that employers cannot rely on an investigation that fails to properly test competing explanations or fairly assess the conduct of everyone involved.
Long service and personal circumstances mattered
The Commission also placed significant weight on Ms McFadden’s personal circumstances when assessing whether dismissal was a proportionate response. She had devoted 23 years of service to Mars and its predecessor without any prior disciplinary issues or performance concerns, giving her a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment.
Deputy President Slevin also accepted that the dismissal would have profound consequences for her and her family. Her working arrangements had enabled her to care for her two sons, including one with special needs, while remaining close to their schools. Losing her employment meant she faced the prospect of either relocating her family to pursue comparable work or accepting lower-paid local employment.
The financial consequences were also substantial, with the loss of her defined benefit superannuation scheme projected to reduce her retirement benefits by more than $300,000.
Taken together, these factors reinforced the Commission’s conclusion that dismissal was a harsh and disproportionate response in the circumstances.
Hall Payne Lawyers can help
Hall Payne Lawyers was proud to represent Ms McFadden in her successful unfair dismissal application before the Fair Work Commission.
If you’ve been dismissed following a workplace investigation, don’t assume the process was fair simply because meetings were held or allegations were put to you.
If important evidence was ignored, your explanation wasn’t genuinely considered, or you believe you were unfairly blamed for broader workplace failures, you may have grounds to challenge your dismissal.
Our experienced employment lawyers regularly represent employees in unfair dismissal claims across Australia and can advise you about your rights, your options and the steps available to challenge an unfair dismissal.