Table of Contents
Disobeying road rules and company policy while driving your employer’s vehicle is an easy way to get dismissed. This has been proven by recent Fair Work Commission decisions, where workers who handled their phone while driving or breached speed limits had their unfair dismissal claims thrown out.
It is now common for employers to equip company vehicles with CCTV surveillance and speed monitoring systems. So if you break road rules, you are more than likely to get caught. And if you contest your sacking via the Commission, your employer can use this surveillance to get your claim dismissed.
This is what happened in a recent unfair dismissal case: Katrina Saunders v Bengalla Mining Company Pty Ltd [2025]. In this case, the driver denied using her phone while driving. However, CCTV footage showed that she more than likely did.
In this article, we look at the events of this case as well as two other stories of drivers doing the wrong thing. This includes a bus driver who was caught on camera urinating in a bottle and throwing it out the window. Also, a cop who was caught watching porn on his phone while driving, resulting in a crash.
-
Truck driver dismissed for handling phone while driving
Katrina Saunders worked as a production employee for Bengalla Mining Company. Her role saw her operate water trucks and haul trucks at the company’s open cut thermal mine in Muswellbrook, New South Wales. These trucks were equipped with infra-red sensors and cameras to detect fatigue and distractions of drivers.
In June 2024, the monitoring system in Ms. Saunders’ truck picked up a distraction event. Bengalla Mining Company reviewed footage of the incident and suspected that Ms. Saunders had used her mobile phone while driving. This caused the company to review past footage from inside her truck. Another nine instances of Ms. Saunders allegedly using her phone in the truck were discovered.
Worker denied using phone
Bengalla Mining Company subsequently launched an investigation into the allegations. In an investigation meeting, Ms. Saunders said that she had never used her phone while driving a truck. The footage of the incidents did not show a phone in her hand. However, Ms. Saunder’s movements and flashes of light from an unclear source indicated that she was using one.
She said that her movements could have been explained by the need to look out the window for other vehicles. Ms. Saunders also claimed that she had maybe been retrieving food or drinks out of her bag, among other reasons to explain her movements.
Show cause and dismissal
Bengalla Mining Company’s investigation concluded that Ms. Saunders had likely breached its safety policy by having her mobile phone turned on within the cab of the truck. It then invited her to show cause why she should not be dismissed.
In her show cause letter, Ms. Saunders said that the company had “misinterpreted” her actions in the footage with mobile phone use. She claimed that while driving her phone was in her bag. She said that her phone does not flash and provided possible reasons to explain her movements in the truck.
Bengalla Mining Company subsequently conducted a reenactment to simulate the movements claimed by Ms. Saunders. She, however, said she was “too stressed” to participate and a colleague took part instead. Following the reenactment, the company concluded that the explanations provided by Ms. Saunders could not account for the movements they saw in the footage.
On 12 July 2024, Bengalla Mining Company summarily fired Ms. Saunders for serious misconduct. She later lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission.
Physics expert called in to assess footage
At Ms. Saunders’ unfair dismissal hearing, she offered alternative explanations for her observed movements and the detected light patterns in the footage. She also told the Fair Work Commission that her phone could automatically turn on when connected to a portable battery pack. This statement contradicted her earlier assertions that the phone was always off.
Bengalla Mining Company highlighted the distinctive infrared light patterns associated with mobile phone screens, which it argued were evident in the footage involving Ms. Saunders. The company also engaged a physics expert. He provided detailed analysis of the infrared light captured in the footage, correlating it with the characteristics of light emitted by mobile phone face ID technology.
Fair Work decides
Ms. Saunders argued to the Fair Work Commission that Bengalla Mining Company had already decided to dismiss her prior to the show cause process. However, the Commission determined that the company had made a “bona fide” attempt to test the validity of Ms. Saunders’ explanations by conducting a reenactment.
The Fair Work Commission examined the footage of Ms. Saunders movements in the truck. It concluded that while it did not show a mobile phone, it did show Ms. Saunders repeatedly looking down at the passenger seat for extended periods while driving. The footage also showed flashes of light and bright spots appearing on Ms. Saunders’ face.
The Commission sided with the testimony of the physics expert, who said that the light captured in the footage was indicative of that from a mobile phone. It was also critical of Ms. Saunders’ testimony. This was because she had initially denied that she had interacted with her phone but later admitted that it could be automatically activated.
Worker slammed for ‘knowing’ her phone would turn on
The Fair Work Commission examined Bengalla Mining Company’s safety policy. Its requirement that drivers not use their mobile phones while driving was deemed reasonable and necessary, given the high-risk environment of the mine. The Commission considered the fact that Ms. Saunders admitted to inadvertently having her phone on in the truck. This was because it had automatically turned on when she attached it to a portable battery pack.
The Commission found that this was not an “innocent breach” of Bengalla Mining Company’s safety policy. It said that she had plugged the phone in and started driving “knowing that the phone would turn on.” Bengalla Mining Company’s decision to dismiss her was deemed valid, particularly given the safety critical nature of the mining sector.
Breached policy on five occasions
The Fair Work Commission highlighted that it was “dangerous” for Ms. Saunders to drive a truck in a mining site while using her phone. It said that the footage showed that she was “distracted.” The Commission found that Bengalla Mining Company had established, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms. Saunders had interacted with her mobile phone while operating a haul truck on at least five occasions.
Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission threw out Ms. Saunders’ unfair dismissal application.
-
Bus driver dismissed for urinating in bottle and throwing it out window
This story, which made headlines in February 2025, is a guide on what not to do while driving a bus. It involved a London bus driver, known only as Mr. Appiah, who claimed he had been unfairly dismissed. His troubles started in January 2024, when his employer Stagecoach London received a complaint from a passenger about his driving.
This complaint compelled the company to review bus CCTV footage, which revealed several instances of bad driving. Mr. Appiah was seen handling his mobile phone and taking his hands off the steering wheel to zip up his jacket. He was also seen reading his duty card whilst the bus was moving, in addition to other instances of driving with one hand.
Mr. Appiah was subsequently placed on suspension as Stagecoach London considered disciplinary action.
Footage revealed driver flung pee bottle out window
The company wanted to determine if the bad driving was a once-off incident, so it reviewed previous footage of Mr. Appiah. This is when it spotted Mr. Appiah urinating in a bottle while driving. He then “thr[e]w the urine out of the window.” After this revelation, Mr. Appiah resigned from his position.
However, he claimed to the UK employment tribunal that he had been pressured to do so by Stagecoach London and his union representative. The company argued that Mr. Appiah’s conduct contravened its policy and posed a significant safety risk to passengers.
Tribunal threw out unfair dismissal claim
Mr. Appiah argued to the tribunal that he was unaware of Stagecoach London’s policy outlawing the use of a phone while driving. The policy explicitly states that “any visible presence of a mobile phone” while the engine is running will result in disciplinary action. The company argued that this policy was clearly communicated to all employees.
At the unfair dismissal hearing, a workmate of Mr. Appiah said that there were two other drivers who had touched their phones while driving. These drivers, however, were not disciplined. However, the managers of these drivers claimed they had never heard of these incidents.
Meanwhile, Stagecoach London had its garage operations manager testify. He said that Mr. Appiah’s sacking without notice was justified, classifying his actions as gross misconduct.
The tribunal said that Mr. Appiah’s claim of unfair dismissal was “not well founded.” It said that his actions, particularly the urination incident and the driving violations, constituted serious breaches of company policy and posed a significant safety risk. His unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.
Read More: What are examples of serious misconduct in a workplace?
-
Cop crashes patrol vehicle while watching porn
This story of a Florida policeman made news headlines in January 2025. It involved Deputy Tristan Macomber, who worked for the Lake County Sheriff’s Office. In November 2024, he was travelling down a main road in his patrol car when he crashed into a civilian vehicle. The crash was bad enough for his airbag to deploy.
When police arrived at the crash scene, Mr. Macomber said that there had been a car in front of him that had stopped due to a school bus having its emergency lights on. He claimed that his brakes simply “locked up.” He said that his car’s speedometer had just been calibrated and that the ABS light had since been on.
Body cam footage revealed all
Lake County Sheriff’s Office subsequently viewed Mr. Macomber’s body cam footage. The footage captured the moment of impact and the subsequent interactions between Mr. Macomber and the civilian driver. He had said to her “Hello, ma’am. Are you OK? I’m so sorry.” But it was what Mr. Macomber had been doing just prior to the crash that interested the Sheriff’s Office most.
The investigating officer noted that in the top right of the screen, Mr. Macomber appeared to be holding a mobile phone. He had picked up his phone about one minute prior to the crash. The investigating officer then examined the footage further, in particular the screen of Mr. Macomber’s phone.
He discovered that the patrolman had been looking at text messages in a group chat. But it was not only messages he was looking at, but also pictures. The officer later gained access to the group chat, where he found “inappropriate pictures.” These were later confirmed as pornographic.
Cop resigned before being dismissed
Mr. Macomber was later interviewed by the Office of Professional Standards, to whom he admitted to providing false information in his initial account of the crash. He confirmed that he had been viewing “inappropriate pictures” at the time. He also revealed that his statement about the ABS light was “more of a deflection” than a genuine reason for the crash.
Mr. Macomber owned up to “lying by omission” by not initially admitting that the porn was the reason for his crash. If this was not bad enough, it was also found that he had not been wearing his seatbelt. The Lake County Sheriff’s Office determined that Mr. Macomber had violated multiple departmental policies. These violations prompted the Sheriff’s Office to initiate dismissal proceedings. However, before that happened, Mr. Macomber resigned from his position.
Have you been dismissed for a driving violation?
A Whole New Approach help workers across Australia get justice for their unfair dismissal. Call us today on 1300 766 700 for a free and private discussion about your situation. We can help you make a claim with the Fair Work Commission and get the compensation you deserve.
