A mining site worker has been awarded almost $10,000 after being sacked for a drunken “naked” swim at an office party after it could not be determined whether he had completely stripped off.
Lester Box, a former cleaning work hospitality and catering company Sirrom, was sacked over the events of a Christmas party that he was “too drunk to remember”.
The Fair Work Commission ruled in his favour after the company failed to provide concrete evidence or testimony that he was naked.
Mr Box was amongst the five employees who were drinking throughout the night at a party on a coal mine camp.
They had moved to the pool area around 8pm and stayed there for several hours.
Mr Box said he consumed about eight or nine drinks and had been egged on by other workers to jump in the pool nude at around 10pm.
He was sacked without notice as Sirrom determined his alleged naked swimming “posed a significant safety, behavioural, and reputational risk”.
Several of Mr Box’s colleagues told Sirrom they saw him jump in the pool while nude but none testified during the hearing or provided written statements.
He was being cheered on during the alleged naked swim, while one other worker also jumped in the pool while nude, witnesses said.
The mining camp had rules against naked swimming, however, there were no rules against drinking after 10pm.
Mr Box argued that he had been told by another colleague that he was in the pool for a few minutes but was wearing underwear.
He said he woke up in his “boardies” on his “quick dries” the next morning.
Mr Box also claimed he was targeted due to his “sexual orientation”. No further details were provided about this in the case.
The sacked worker was also not shown evidence of being naked in the pool, despite requesting video footage.
This footage was only available through Sirrom’s client, but the company “relied on hearsay” for the case.
The Fair Work Commission ruled that Mr Box’s sacking was unfair as it could not be proven he was naked.
“The Respondent’s poor evidentiary case does not support a finding that he was naked in the pool,” the ruling says.
“In these circumstances, I am unable to reach a firm conclusion, on the balance of probabilities that the alleged conduct occurred.
“On this basis I am unable to conclude that there was a valid reason for the dismissal.”
Mr Box was paid $9,543 for the dismissal, equivalent to six weeks’ salary for him.