Truckie Dismissed Over $100K of Melted Ice Cream

The Fair Work Commission has ruled a NSW truck driver was fairly dismissed for a blunder that destroyed $75,000 worth of ice cream. The driver had failed to set his refrigerated trailer to the correct temperature and did not correct the mistake despite numerous opportunities to. Including disposal costs, the error cost his employer over $100,000. Even though the driver was not given an opportunity to respond to the reason for his sacking, the Commission ruled it was justified.

In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal NSW case: Jeremiah Manly v ERH Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd [2026]. We’ll also look at the case of a garbo who won an unfair dismissal payout after being sacked over porn, texting and speeding.

Case Summary: Jeremiah Manly v ERH Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission NSW.
  
  
• Key employee argument: He could not explain why the trailer temperature had not been set correctly, resulting in an over $100,000 stock loss. He was not solely responsible given a third-party facility’s cold-loading policy.
  
  
• Key employer argument: The driver had multiple opportunities to correct the trailer’s temperature but failed to do so.
  
  
• Fair Work outcome: Justified dismissal despite a procedural shortcoming.

Unfair dismissal NSW: Driver fired for melted ice cream fails to win job back

Jeremiah Manly started working as a linehaul truck driver for ERH Refrigerated Transport in November 2022. He was tasked with transporting refrigerated goods between Melbourne and Wagga Wagga, NSW, having made this trip around 600 times during his employment. On 3 December 2025, Mr. Manly made the trip from Wagga Wagga to a cold storage facility operated by NewCold in Melbourne. He was tasked with collecting a load of ice cream, with instructions to set his trailer to minus 22 degrees Celsius. It was Mr. Manly’s responsibility to turn on the fridge motor and set this temperature.

Records showed Mr. Manly departed Wagga Wagga at 2am and arrived in Melbourne at 7am. He operated the truck there between approximately 8:45am and 9am, departing Melbourne at 10am and returning to Wagga Wagga at 3pm. This gave him six separate opportunities to check the trailer’s temperature. However, throughout the trip, the trailer’s temperature had been set to around minus 1 degree Celsius.

Unfair dismissal NSW: Driver fired five days after the mishap

Around 1am the next morning, ERH’s night manager corrected the temperature setting, but by that point the load had already defrosted. The entire shipment, valued at $73,796, had to be disposed of. The disposal of the ruined stock cost the company an additional $30,000.

On 8 December 2025, Mr. Manly was called to a meeting with his boss and an HR representative. He was asked to explain the events of 3 December 2025 and was told he was fired with immediate effect. Later that day, ERH sent Mr. Manly written confirmation of his termination of employment, along with payment in lieu of notice.

Why did the driver argue he faced unjustified dismissal?

In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Manly made the following arguments to the Fair Work Commission:

• He had set the trailer’s temperature correctly and could not explain why it “didn’t take.”
  
  
• The trailer doors had been left open due to requiring maintenance while in Melbourne.
  
  
• NewCold had a policy of not loading trucks unless the temperature was at least minus 12 degrees Celsius. Mr. Manly could not understand how his truck had been loaded given the temperature discrepancy.
  
  
• The other driver involved in completing the delivery also faced termination of employment, indicating he should not bear sole responsibility.
  
  
• A prior written warning relied on by ERH related to different, disputed conduct and should not be used to support his termination of employment.

In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, ERH argued Mr. Manly had failed to correctly set the trailer’s temperature. The company outlined that he had failed to check it at any point during the six-hour trip, despite having numerous opportunities to do so. ERH also contended that regardless of NewCold’s loading policies or the other driver’s actions, Mr. Manly could still be held accountable for his own failures.

Why did Fair Work rule the dismissal was justified?

Mr. Manly’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in May 2026. It ruled that his termination of employment was justified based on the following findings:

• There was no basis to suggest the refrigeration unit was faulty, given the night manager was able to remotely adjust the temperature.
  
  
• Even if Mr. Manly had attempted to set the temperature correctly, he failed to check it during the trip.
  
  
• Mr. Manly’s evidence regarding the trailer doors being left open for maintenance was given little weight. It did not explain the incorrect temperature setting and was inconsistent with temperature data.
  
  
• It was not necessary for Mr. Manly to be “solely” responsible for the incident for ERH to have a valid reason for termination of employment.
  
  
• The decision to sack Mr. Manly was judged to have been made before he was given an opportunity to respond. However, this procedural failure did not render the termination of employment unfair, as Mr. Manly was unable to provide an adequate explanation for the incident.

Garbo fired for porn and texting while driving wins $6K payout

In Daniel Thomas v Bin Boy Environmental Pty Ltd [2026], a Melbourne garbage truck driver fired for distributing porn at work was awarded an unfair dismissal payout. The driver had also texted while driving and racked up speeding infringements. The Fair Work Commission found several of the driver’s actions justified dismissal. However, it ruled the company’s failure to warn him or give him any opportunity to respond rendered the sacking unfair.

Case Summary: Daniel Thomas v Bin Boy Environmental Pty Ltd [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission Victoria.
  
  
• Key employee argument: He had never received any formal warnings about his conduct and was given no opportunity to respond before being fired.
  
  
• Key employer argument: The driver’s conduct, including distributing pornographic material, speeding, and texting while driving, amounted to serious misconduct.
  
  
• Fair Work outcome: While some of the conduct constituted valid reasons for termination of employment, it was procedurally unfair. $6,676.16 payout ordered.

Garbo who distributed porn at work wins unfair dismissal payout

Daniel Thomas started working as a truck driver for Melbourne waste management company Bin Boy Environmental in May 2024. After finishing work on 13 November 2025, he was called into a meeting, handed a letter, and asked to read it. The letter said that his employment was terminated, effective immediately, for serious misconduct. He was then asked to return his key and left the workplace. This was the first time Mr. Thomas was told his job was at risk. He had not been warned beforehand that any of his conduct could lead to termination of employment.

It was only after Mr. Thomas lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim that he found out why he had been fired. However, Bin Boy told the Fair Work Commission that it had provided Mr. Thomas with written warnings for five separate incidents:

• In March 2025, Mr. Thomas placed pornographic material in colleagues’ trays in the staff area. Bin Boy said this was a breach of its sexual harassment policy.
  
  
• In July 2025, he left hard waste in an inappropriate location, which he was directed by text message to clean up.
  
  
• In October 2025, Bin Boy received two speeding infringement notices for vehicles Mr. Thomas had been driving. This was while he was under a demerit point period that would result in a licence suspension for any infringement.
  
  
• Also in October, Bin Boy sent Mr. Thomas a photo of himself texting while driving, with the message “Don’t text and drive.” Mr. Thomas replied, “What are you gonna do sack me.”
  
  
• On the day of his dismissal, Mr. Thomas responded to a workplace safety message in a group chat with the words, “Another group chat why so many this is getting a bit beyond a joke naw.”

Why did the worker argue his dismissal was unfair?

In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Thomas argued:

• He never received the written warnings Bin Boy relied upon. He only received text messages to fix specific issues.
  
  
• He was not warned that his employment was at risk. He was also not given an opportunity to respond to the reasons for his termination of employment.
  
  
• Comments he made in a work group chat reflected genuine frustration at the number of similar chats he was expected to monitor.
  
  
• His texting-while-driving incident did not warrant termination of employment.

Why did Fair Work rule that it was an unjustified dismissal?

Mr. Thomas’ Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in March 2026. Despite finding valid reasons for termination of employment, the Commission ruled that the process Bin Boy followed rendered it unfair. Its decision was based on the following findings:

• The incidents involving pornographic material, texting while driving, and speeding were each valid reasons for termination of employment in their own right.
  
  
• The hard waste incident, the driving demerit period itself and the group chat comment were not valid reasons.
  
  
• The Commission was “troubled by the possibility” Bin Boy’s written warnings had been fabricated. The company failed to call the named signatory or file any supporting witness evidence. It was noted that the March 2025 warning referenced a workplace policy that did not exist until after a WorkSafe Victoria audit in July 2025.
  
  
• Mr. Thomas was never notified that Bin Boy was considering his termination of employment. He was also not given any opportunity to respond before the decision was made.

Reinstatement was considered inappropriate, given Mr. Thomas had already secured new employment. Bin Boy was therefore ordered to pay him $6,676.16, inclusive of superannuation, within 21 days. This figure took into account that Mr. Thomas would likely have remained employed for four more weeks had proper procedures been followed.

Unjustified dismissal FAQs

1. Can you be fired for one mistake?

Yes, a single incident can be a valid reason for termination of employment if it is serious enough. In Jeremiah Manly v ERH Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd [2026], a truck driver failed to correctly set the temperature of his refrigerated trailer, resulting in over $100,000 in stock loss. The Commission ruled this mistake warranted termination of employment, noting that he had numerous opportunities to correct his mistake. The dismissal was justified even though the employer was found to have made its decision before the driver was given an opportunity to respond.

2. Can I be sacked without a warning?

Under the Fair Work Act 2009, you can be sacked without warning if the reason for termination of employment is serious misconduct. You can also be fired without warning if you are in your probation period. However, for typical performance-related terminations, an employer must notify you of the reason and provide an opportunity to respond before making a final decision.

In Daniel Thomas v Bin Boy Environmental Pty Ltd [2026], the Fair Work Commission found that the worker’s conduct included matters serious enough to justify dismissal. However, he was never warned his job was at risk and was not given any opportunity to respond before the decision was made. This was enough to render the termination of employment unfair, resulting in a compensation payout.

Read more: Can An Overseas Worker Make a Fair Work Unfair Dismissal Claim?

Considering challenging your dismissal?

When it comes to terminations, the Fair Work Commission expects employers to get the process right, not just have a good reason. If you’ve lost your job and aren’t sure whether your employer followed the correct steps, our team can help you understand where you stand.

Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives works exclusively for employees across Australia on unfair dismissal, general protections, sexual harassment and workplace bullying matters. We can help you use the Fair Work system to hold your employer to account. Contact us today on 1800 333 666 for your free and confidential first consultation.