An Australia Post employee dismissed for using a company vehicle to drive to KFC during an unauthorised break has lost his reinstatement bid at the Fair Work Commission. Following his unauthorised KFC run, he racked up 19 unexplained absences over the following month. While recognising his 36 years of service, the Commission found that his conduct was of such a “grave nature as to be repugnant” to the employment relationship.
In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal NSW case: Darren Delany v Australian Postal Corporation [2026]. We’ll also explore the case of a UK worker fired for going to McDonalds for lunch, who argued he was too stupid to know he was breaking the rules. Then finally, we’ll look at a US McDonald’s manager whose fries-in-mouth video led to both termination of employment and criminal charges.
Case Summary: Darren Delany v Australian Postal Corporation [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission New South Wales.
- Key employer argument: The worker took an unauthorised lunch break to get KFC. He repeatedly disobeyed directions and failed to attend work.
- Key employee argument: He was confused by the instructions given to him, and was targeted for dismissal due to his history of conflict with management.
- Fair Work outcome: Termination of employment was not unfair given the gravity of the misconduct.
Darren Delany started at Australia Post in 1989, and at the time of his dismissal was working as a driver/sorter for its van service in the Newcastle, NSW area. On 7 May 2025, Mr. Delany was rostered on from 6am until 1:51pm, a lighter delivery run assigned to him due to a diagnosed “acute stress reaction.” He was given permission to drive an Australia Post vehicle to a meeting at another facility to act as a support person for a colleague.
After the meeting, Mr. Delany spoke with his colleague for around 20 minutes before driving to a KFC for lunch, without telling his supervisor. He did not take his rostered 30-minute lunch break at its scheduled time of 10:40am. This was despite being aware that, as a union representative, he was required to tell his supervisor if he was taking a break at a different time or location. Mr. Delany also left work 30 minutes early that day without permission.
‘That’s the perfect word’: Worker admits being ‘evasive’
The next day, the postal transport coordinator asked Mr. Delany where he had gone after his meeting with this colleague. Mr. Delany replied by saying it was “none of their business.” Later that day, another Australia Post manager attempted to discuss the matter with Mr. Delany. When that manager began asking, “why are you trying to be…”, Mr. Delany interjected with “evasive?”, to which the manager replied, “yeah. That’s the perfect word.” During this exchange, Mr. Delany told the manager that he was “going to have some fun for the next two years.” He later clarified that he meant he had about two years left before retirement.
On 22 May 2025, the manager again attempted to speak with Mr. Delany, who told the manager that he needed to “make an appointment” if he wanted to talk to him. The manager said that he was entitled to speak with him because he was his manager. Mr. Delany then told the manager that he was “abusing his power,” before leaving work 30 minutes early, without permission.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Worker failed to attend work or respond to 17 messages
From 23 May 2025, Mr. Delany did not return to work. At his Fair Work unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission found that Mr. Delany ought to have understood he was not on approved sick leave. Between 27 May 2025 and 26 June 2025, managers sent Mr. Delany approximately 17 text messages asking him to make contact. Mr. Delany told the Commission that he believed these messages might have been a scam. However, the Commission did not find this credible, particularly given he responded to two of them, referencing his understanding that he had been removed from duty.
Australia Post also arranged a welfare check at Mr. Delany’s home on 29 May 2025 and sent formal correspondence directing him to provide medical evidence for his absence. Mr. Delany did not attend a series of counselling sessions and disciplinary interviews organised by Australia Post. However, in September 2025 he responded in writing to the allegations against him. Mr. Delany faced termination of employment on 29 September 2025 for serious misconduct. Australia Post cited the KFC incident, failure to comply with reasonable directions, and repeated failure to attend work.
Why did the worker argue his dismissal was unfair?
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Delany made the following arguments:
- He was confused by the instructions given to him regarding lunch breaks, early departures and contacting his employer.
- He was targeted for dismissal due to his history of conflict with management. This stemmed from his roles as a union representative and health and safety representative.
- His workplace injuries, including his diagnosed acute stress reaction, were the true reason for his termination of employment.
- He had dedicated 36 years of service to Australia post and suffered financial hardship due to the termination of employment.
In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Australia Post argued that Mr. Delany repeatedly failed to follow reasonable directions. It said that he disregarded the authority of his managers and breached multiple obligations under its ethics policy. This included requirements to attend work reliably, follow correct notification procedures and comply with directions.
Why did Fair Work rule the dismissal was not unfair?
Mr. Dealany’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in July 2026. Despite recognising his 36 years of service and the financial difficulty he faced due to the termination, the Commission ruled that it was not disproportionate to the gravity of Mr. Delany’s conduct. This decision was made for the following reasons:
- Mr. Delany failed to comply with reasonable directions to attend work or contact Australia Post on at least 19 occasions.
- Mr. Delany “did ‘have some fun’ by ‘playing games’” with Australia Post. This included ignoring communications and offering implausible excuses.
- His claim that he was confused by the instructions was rejected, as they had been “simple and clear.”
- There was no evidence that he was targeted for termination of employment due to his history of conflict with management. His workplace injury was also ruled out as a reason.
- Mr. Delany’s conduct was “of such a grave nature as to be repugnant to the employment relationship.”
Low IQ school caretaker dismissed for McDonald’s lunch trip
This unfair dismissal story comes to us from the UK. Forty-seven-year old Kevin Lilly had worked as a caretaker and cleaner at Southend High School for Boys in Essex since 2007. In September 2023, he was invited by three 18-year-old sixth grade students to join them on a lunch trip to McDonald’s. He accepted a lift, ate with the students and returned to school in the same car.
This trip to Maccas, however, saw Mr. Lilly stood down and later fired in October 2023. The school cited his repeated failure to follow instructions on maintaining professional boundaries with pupils. He subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with a UK employment tribunal.
Credit | Facebook
Argued dismissal was unfair because he had an 11-year-old’s mental ability
Mr. Lilly represented himself at the employment tribunal, arguing that he had not understood he was breaching any rule. Asked to define the word “professional” during proceedings, he said he understood it to mean being good with students. The tribunal heard that Mr. Lilly had been assessed in 2019 as scoring in the third to sixth percentile for intellectual functioning. This was roughly equivalent to the cognitive ability of an 11-year-old. Mr. Lilly also said that he was awaiting an ADHD diagnosis.
The tribunal found that the school was justified in believing Mr. Lilly had committed misconduct by going to McDonalds. However, it had failed to investigate whether Mr. Lilly’s known cognitive and neurodevelopmental difficulties had contributed to his actions. Despite being aware of his pending ADHD assessment and earlier psychological evidence, the school did not contact his doctor before proceeding with termination of employment.
Unjustified dismissal ruled
The tribunal also noted that the school had never formally disciplined Mr. Lilly under its own procedures for earlier incidents. Expecting him to fully understand a lengthy safeguarding policy document was unrealistic given his cognitive challenges.
Ultimately, the tribunal ruled that Mr. Lilly’s termination of employment had been unfair. The decision took into account his 16 years of service, the fact that the McDonald’s trip was a once-off incident, and the school’s failure to explore his medical circumstances.
McDonald’s manager dismissed and charged for fries-in-mouth video
Finally, this story from the US led to what we could all agree was a justified dismissal. A McDonald’s manager in Southbridge, Massachusetts, was sacked after a video showing her placing French fries in her mouth went viral. The 14-second clip showed the woman putting fries in her mouth on two occasions before placing them into a serving container held by a colleague. The footage did not show the fries being handed to a customer, but it prompted widespread public concern once it began circulating in early May 2026.
The restaurant’s owner suspended both employees seen in the video and dismissed them following an internal investigation. Police separately investigated the incident and identified the employee who put the food in her mouth as a restaurant manager. Officers said she is alleged to have spat into a fry carton and placed several fries in her mouth before serving them to a customer at the drive-through window. Surveillance footage reportedly supported this account.
Investigators said the customer who received the food had previously been in a relationship with the manager. The manager was later issued a summons to appear in court to face a charge of distributing food containing a harmful substance.
Unfair dismissal FAQs
1. Can you get sacked for taking unauthorised leave?
Yes, an employer can lawfully dismiss an employee for taking unauthorised leave or being absent from work without proper notification. This is particularly the case if this happens repeatedly and the employee ignores requests to explain their absence. The Fair Work Commission will generally consider whether the employee was properly informed of the requirement to notify their employer, and whether their explanation for the absences was credible.
In Darren Delany v Australian Postal Corporation [2026], the Commission found the worker’s repeated failure to attend work or contact his employer was a valid reason for dismissal. He had been absent on at least 19 occasions, ignored 17 messages from his employer and offered explanations the Commission found were not credible.
2. Can you get fired for not following instructions?
Yes, an employer can dismiss an employee for repeatedly failing to follow reasonable and lawful directions. Courts and tribunals will typically consider whether the instructions were genuinely unclear or unreasonable, or whether the employee simply chose not to comply.
In Darren Delany v Australian Postal Corporation [2026], the Fair Work Commission rejected the worker’s argument that he was confused by the instructions given to him regarding lunch breaks and contacting his employer. It found that the directions were “simple and clear” and that his failure to comply amounted to a valid reason for termination of employment.
Been unfairly dismissed or mistreated at work?
We at A Whole New Approach (AWNA) are Australia’s leading workplace mediators, with over 40 years of combined experience helping workers take action via Fair Work. We operate in every state and territory and offer a no win, no fee service. Get in touch today on 1300 766 700 for your complimentary and private initial consultation.
