Infrabuild Cop FWC Slap for Dodgy Fraud Warning and Safety Role Stitch-Up

The Fair Work Commission has ruled Infrabuild Steel Laverton crossed the line when it slapped an AWU member with a fraud warning over two hours of overtime and then tried to block him from a safety role his workmates voted him into.

Commissioner Tran’s decision, handed down just before New Year, found the company failed to follow its own disciplinary procedures and acted unreasonably when it accused melt shop operator and HSR Jaydan Brandon of fraud.

Jaydan attended a quarterly Workforce Consultation Meeting in December 2024 and recorded two hours on the attendance sheet, which is how long he was there. He had relied on information about the meeting that turned out to be incorrect regarding payment arrangements. No one ever disputed he was on site for those two hours.

Instead of sorting it out, Infrabuild launched disciplinary proceedings and issued him with a written warning for “Breach of Fraud Policy.”

Commissioner Tran found Infrabuild’s handling was flawed on two counts. First, they did not follow the disciplinary procedure in their own enterprise agreement.

The company was supposed to clearly put the fraud and dishonesty allegations to Brandon during the disciplinary interview. They did not. They talked about “wage theft” and incorrect timekeeping but only specified the fraud policy breach when they handed down the outcome. Second, the warning was disproportionate. Jaydan did not act dishonestly. He relied on information that was provided about the meeting, and anyone could have made the same mistake.

Then it got worse. In February 2025, Jaydan workmates voted him in as OHS Co-ordinator. He was the only nominee. Two weeks later, Infrabuild vetoed the appointment, citing the written warning they had just issued. The Commission said no. The company had plenty of time to review Brandon’s nomination and raise any concerns through the proper consultative processes in the agreement. Instead, they sat on their hands until after the vote, then tried to overturn what the workforce had democratically decided.

This decision reinforces what we already know: employers cannot throw around serious allegations like fraud without following proper process. If you are going to accuse someone of dishonesty, you need to say that during the disciplinary meeting, not spring it on them afterwards. And the penalty needs to match what happened. It also shows management cannot abuse their rights under enterprise agreements. If you have got a veto over safety appointments, you exercise it within the agreed timeframes and consultation processes. You do not wait until workers have voted and then pull the rug out.

The AWU will keep fighting when employers fail to follow proper process or come after our members with disproportionate penalties. This win shows it is worth the fight.