Events
Thursday, 12:30 – Zak was operating an APN.
He manually moved one APN.
He then went 100–200m away to another aisle to deal with a different APN that had stopped moving.
While there, he used his phone to note pallet issues (a routine practice he has done openly for years, with notes often sent to stock control and shown to his manager).
In the meantime, the first APN he left standing stationary was later hit by another APN.
After the incident – Zak continued his shift as normal.
He was not removed from his APN duties that day.
No immediate action was taken against him.
He continued working with APNs for almost a full day afterwards without restriction.
Friday, 11:30 – Nearly 24 hours later, management removed him from the APN role and asked him to do another job.
Friday, 12:45 – Over 24 hours after the incident, he was formally suspended.
Management’s Case
They claim Zak did not press the “continue” button long enough, leaving the APN stationary in the aisle.
Another APN then collided into the one left stationary.
They argue this constitutes a serious Health & Safety breach.
They also allege misuse of his phone, since he was making notes without formal written permission.
However, CCTV has been reviewed and shows the APN did not move after Zak left it, supporting the assumption that he did not press the “continue” button.
Allegations in the letter
Serious breach of Health & Safety
Specifically: breach of mobile phone policy whilst on a live warning
Plus: “careless operating behaviour resulting in a collision”
Refusal to Work
After being given a “reasonable request”
What the letter doesn’t say
It doesn’t say he caused the collision — only that it resulted from “careless operating behaviour.”
It doesn’t specify what exactly the “careless behaviour” was — meaning the company are relying on assumptions (that leaving an APN stationary = careless, despite them having sensors).
It acknowledges the phone policy breach only because of policy wording, not because it caused harm.
Defence Notes for Meeting
1. Delay undermines seriousness
If this was a genuine “gross breach” of Health & Safety (as stated in the letter), why was Zak:
Left on APN duties for nearly 24 hours afterwards?
Only removed at 11:30 Friday, and not suspended until 12:45 Friday? The incident happened 12:30 Thursday
That delay shows the company themselves did not see it as urgent or dangerous at the time.
If they did, leaving him on the same job for a full shift would itself be gross negligence and a failure in the company’s duty of care to provide a safe working environment.
2. Collision causation
CCTV shows the APN Zak left did not move after he walked away.
Therefore, the collision was caused by a different APN failing to stop — a machine/system fault.
Leaving an APN stationary should make the area safer, not more dangerous.
These machines are supposed to have sensors to prevent collisions. If an APN cannot stop before hitting a stationary object, that’s a design/safety issue, not operator negligence.
Important: If the stationary object had been a person instead of a machine, this would prove the APNs are unsafe. Blaming Zak distracts from that risk.
This is the first incident in six years — hardly a pattern of behaviour.
3. Phone use – Custom & Practice
Zak has used his phone openly for years to log pallet issues.
His managers have received these notes, sometimes shown directly in person.
The company has benefited from this practice — stock control rely on those notes.
It has never been challenged before, so it forms custom & practice, which protects Zak.
Many colleagues (including myself) use their phones the same way and have never been challenged.
Zak was not acting outside normal practice — he followed the same path as peers.
To suddenly reframe this as gross misconduct is inconsistent and unfair.
4. Refusal to Work claim is misleading
Zak did not refuse to work.
He refused trailer tipping because of back problems — a legitimate health concern.
Instead, he immediately continued contributing by collecting pallets and supporting his team.
That is not misconduct, it is a reasonable adjustment for health reasons.
H&S law allows employees to refuse tasks that put their health at risk.
5. Final framing
At worst, this may have been a small slip (not pressing the button long enough).
But there is no hard evidence of that — APNs are temperamental and may have turned off again themselves.
If the company want to claim “gross misconduct,” they must prove a deliberate breach — not a possible machine quirk.
The real cause of the incident was the second APN crashing into a stationary object.
This feels less like a fair investigation and more like finger pointing.
⚖️ These notes put you in a strong position to argue:
Zak’s actions = normal and reasonable.
Management’s response = delayed and inconsistent.
Root cause = machine/system failure, not operator negligence.
Gross Misconduct – What it Means
Gross misconduct is behaviour so serious it destroys trust and confidence between employer and employee.
Examples typically include:
Theft, fraud, or dishonesty
Violence or threats of violence
Serious bullying or harassment
Being under the influence of alcohol/drugs at work
Deliberate or reckless breaches of Health & Safety that put people at real risk of serious harm
Key point: It usually requires either intentional wrongdoing or behaviour that shows serious disregard for safety or rules.
A one-off slip, mistake, or equipment issue usually does not meet this threshold.
Why This Matters
Phone use: Was not hidden, was known and accepted, and was for work purposes — that is not reckless or dishonest, it's not even misconduct.
Collision: The APN stayed still; another machine hit it. That is a system fault, not Zak’s.
Delay: If the company really thought this was “gross misconduct,” leaving Zak on APNs for 24 hours = gross negligence by the company, because they knowingly left the alleged “danger” in place.