A Fremantle dock worker who was dismissed for calling a colleague a “dog” and making a death threat has been fined $23,000 by the Fair Work Ombudsman. The worker, a member of the Maritime Union of Australia, made the threat when his colleague crossed a picket line. The Ombudsman found that the aggressive name-calling and threat constituted adverse action against his colleague by denying his right to not engage in industrial action.
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work case, Fair Work Ombudsman v Gill (Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case) (Penalty) [2026]. Later, we’ll look at another case involving a worker who called colleagues “c*nts” and “dogs,” and why the Fair Work Commission found he had been fairly dismissed.
Jason Gill had worked in the mining and maritime industries for over forty years. He was a member of the Maritime Union of Australia and an employee of Qube Ports. The event that led to his termination of employment and Fair Work Ombudsman penalty happened on 24 August 2021. On that day, an industrial dispute was unfolding between the union and Qube Ports at Fremantle Harbour in Western Australia. Workers had established a lawful picket line outside the site.
A Qube Ports employee, Christopher Copperthwaite, had opted not to take part in the industrial action and attempted to cross the picket line to perform his work duties. As he approached the site, he was surrounded by picketers and subjected to aggressive verbal abuse, including being called a “scab” and a “dog.” This was when Mr. Gill confronted Mr. Copperthwaite and told him: “You’ll end up dead, dog, if you keep going like this.”
Following the name-calling incident, Qube Ports provided Mr. Gill the opportunity to take responsibility for his actions. On two separate occasions during the internal investigation, Mr. Gill chose to deny that he had made the threat. He faced termination of employment in December 2021 and subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. He later deposed in a 2025 affidavit that he found the experience of being sacked by Qube Ports “humiliating and distressing.”
Rather than proceeding to a full Fair Work Commission hearing, Mr. Gill and Qube Ports reached a private agreement to resolve his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. Under the agreement terms, Mr. Gill’s employment was ended by way of formal resignation rather than direct termination of employment.
It was not only termination of employment that Mr. Gill faced in the aftermath of the name-calling incident. In March 2022, the Australian Building and Construction Commission commenced legal action against him. This action was transferred to the Fair Work Ombudsman following the Commission’s abolition. The case against Mr. Gill was heard by the Federal Court of Australia in 2025.
Mr. Gill told the court that he had faced “significant publicity” due to the picket line incident in 2021, which included being named in news reports. He said that this was a major factor that contributed to his difficulties in securing new employment after leaving Qube Ports. However, the court also heard about how Mr. Gill’s threat had affected Mr. Copperthwaite. It learned that the victim suffered from ongoing psychological distress. This included persistent sleep issues and panic attacks, particularly when in dark environments.
The Federal Court ruled that Mr. Gill’s conduct at the picket line constituted a severe breach of the Fair Work Act 2009. It ordered him to pay $14,000 in compensation to Mr. Copperthwaite for the significant distress and psychological damage caused by the incident. Specifically, the Federal Court found that:
When the matter returned to the Federal Court for the penalty hearing in April 2026, Mr. Gill faced further consequences for the name-calling and death threat. The Federal Court noted that Mr. Gill had failed to show any genuine contrition for the Fair Work contraventions. While Mr. Gill argued that he had suffered hardship following his resignation, the court found this did not excuse his behaviour.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the Fair Work Ombudsman. It ordered Mr. Gill to pay a pecuniary penalty of $9,324 for the contravention of section 348 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This was treated as the “lead contravention” by the court. This penalty was in addition to the $14,000 in compensation Mr. Gil had to pay to Mr. Copperthwaite. The penalty was payable to the Commonwealth.
The court highlighted that the pecuniary penalty, representing 70% of the statutory maximum, was necessary to serve as a specific deterrent to Mr. Gill. It was also to deter others who might consider using intimidation to undermine the rights of colleagues. The court ultimately dismissed attempts to hold the Maritime Union of Australia vicariously liable for the threat. It found that there was no sufficient evidence that the union had sanctioned Mr. Gill’s conduct.
Another case that involved a worker who was fired for name-calling is the unfair dismissal NSW decision Jacob Battle v Macleay Options Inc [2021].
Jacob Battle started working for not-for-profit Macleay Options in May 2017 and was based in the NSW coastal town of Kempsey. The events that led to his termination of employment occurred on 2 September 2020. That morning, Mr. Battle became involved in a disagreement with a colleague over a borrowed spoon.
The colleague alleged that Mr. Battle acted in a rude manner. Later that day, at around 12:30pm, Mr. Battle was involved in an altercation with another employee, Mr. Holten. During this incident, Mr. Battle threw a water bottle that landed near Mr. Holten, leading to a heated confrontation.
Witnesses then observed Mr. Battle removing his shirt, which was interpreted as a challenge to fight, while he yelled at Mr. Holten. He also reportedly threw a chair and a blower, and punched a downpipe. Throughout this fracas, Mr. Battle aggressively called nearby colleagues “c*nts, dogs and smart arses.”
He then asked one colleague, “where were you, you lazy c*nt?” Mr. Battle’s outburst came less than one month after he had received a verbal warning regarding his attendance and inappropriate behaviour towards staff. This included an incident where he told the operations manager he “can suck his dick”.
Around 15 minutes after the name-calling incident, Macleay Options’ HR manager arrived at the site to speak with witnesses. He then discussed the events with the CEO, who decided that Mr. Battle would face termination of employment. The HR manager tried to call Mr. Battle, but the call went unanswered.
He then sent Mr. Battle a text message and an email confirming his dismissal and the reasons for it. Mr. Battle finally called back at 3pm to deny the allegations and request that CCTV footage be checked, However, he was told that the cameras were not recording and that management preferred the evidence of the other employees.
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Battle made several arguments as to why his termination of employment was unjustified:
Meanwhile, Macleay Options argued to the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Battle’s verbal abuse and name-calling was a valid reason for termination of employment. This was because he had already been given a warning about prior inappropriate behaviour. The employer admitted it did not have a formal meeting with Mr. Battle before his termination. Macleay Options said that it “did not want to get into a conversation over it” as they believed the situation would not go smoothly.
Mr. Battle’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in December 2020. It ruled that Macleay Options had a valid reason for the termination of employment. The Commission found:
However, the Fair Work Commission was highly critical of the “rushed and inept” termination process followed by Macleay Options. It noted that Mr. Battle was not notified of the reasons for his sacking or given an opportunity to respond before the decision was made. The Commission stated that the employer’s reasoning – that it “did not want to get into a conversation” – was not acceptable. It said that the “the most basic application of procedural fairness” would have seen Mr. Battle given the chance to assess the allegations and make a reply.
Despite these findings, the Commission concluded that the procedural failures would not have changed the ultimate outcome, given the gravity of Mr. Battle’s misconduct. It held that the severity of the name-calling and aggression, particularly following a recent warning, outweighed the procedural shortcomings. Mr. Battle’s sacking was therefore deemed justified and his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was thrown out.
1. Is name-calling at work considered a valid reason for dismissal?
It depends on the severity and context. In the case of Jacob Battle v Macleay Options Inc [2021], the Fair Commission ruled that calling colleagues “c*nts” and “dogs” constituted serious misconduct as he had “harshly denigrated” the colleagues in an aggressive manner. The worker had also received a prior warning for similar behavior only a month earlier. For these reasons, his termination of employment was upheld as fair.
2. Can I win an unfair dismissal claim if my employer denied procedural fairness?
Yes, but it is not a guarantee. While the Fair Work Commission generally requires employers to follow a fair process, such as notifying you of allegations and allowing you to respond, a lack of procedural fairness does not automatically result in a win. The Commission weighs the employer’s flawed process against the actual reason for the termination of employment.
In the case of Jacob Battle v Macleay Options Inc [2021], the employer fired the worker via text and email without a formal interview, a process the Commission slammed as “rushed and inept.” However, because the worker had “harshly denigrated” colleagues with slurs and aggressive behavior shortly after a prior warning, the Commission ruled the misconduct was grave enough that a better process would not have changed the outcome. Ultimately, the termination of employment was upheld as fair despite the procedural errors.
Read more: Swearing in the Workplace
If you believe you’ve faced unjustified dismissal or had your employment rights violated, we can help. We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) assist employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, general protections disputes, forced resignation and workplace harassment matters. We can help you assess your situation and hold those responsible to account.
Strict submission deadlines apply for Fair Work claims, so contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential initial consultation.
