Hazing is not harmless: a safety and legal failure in modern workplaces

Jarrod McRae v Jetstar Airways Pty Limited [2026] FWC 1122

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission reinforces a critical shift in workplace standards: hazing, “horseplay”, and informal discipline are no longer culturally tolerated, they are safety breaches with legal consequences.

In this case, a highly experienced aircraft maintenance engineer with 23 years’ tenure was dismissed after engaging in unsafe conduct involving apprentices working at height.

The incident: when “horseplay” becomes a hazard

Two apprentices were working from an elevating work platform (EWP) approximately six metres above ground level.

A senior worker on the ground:

• Activated the emergency stop button, disabling the EWP

• Told the apprentices he was going to lunch

• Left them stranded at height for approximately 10 minutes

• Took no steps to ensure safe descent or supervision.

The apprentices were eventually lowered by another worker entering the area.

The senior worker attempted to justify the conduct as:

• A response to perceived underperformance

• A way to “teach a lesson” without shouting

• An accidental oversight (claiming he forgot to reset the EWP)

The Commission rejected this explanation.

Key legal findings

Deputy President Clancy made several clear and instructive findings:

1. Valid reason for dismissal

The conduct constituted:

• A breach of a cardinal safety rule (no horseplay/practical jokes)

• Reckless behaviour in a safety critical environment

• Exposure of workers to foreseeable risk of harm.

This provided a valid reason for dismissal.

2. Safety risk overrides intent

The worker argued no real danger existed because:

• Experienced workers often spend long periods at height.

The Commission rejected this, emphasising:

• Risk is assessed objectively, not by the perpetrator’s experience

• Apprentices lacked the same confidence, control, and situational awareness

• They were left in an “invidious position”, without control or safe exit.

3. Hazing culture is not a defence

The worker relied on:

• “This is how it was done in the old days”

• Cultural norms of apprenticeship “toughening”.

The Commission was unequivocal:

• Such conduct reflects a declining and unacceptable minority view

• Historical practices do not legitimise current behaviour.

4. Broader conduct: inappropriate but not determinative

Additional behaviours included:

• Derogatory comments (“you are all pussies now”)

• Descriptions of past abusive apprentice treatment.

These:

• Demonstrated poor judgement and failure to read the room

• Supported a pattern of behaviour

• But alone would not have justified dismissal.

Why this matters

This decision is not just about misconduct, it reflects convergence between WHS law, psychosocial safety obligations, HR, and employment law.

1. Physical safety risk

The act created:

• Loss of control over plant (EWP)

• Entrapment risk at height

• Potential for panic, error, or unsafe self-rescue.

Under Australian WHS frameworks:

• This is a failure to ensure safe systems of work

• And a breach of plant safety controls.

2. Psychosocial safety risk

The apprentice reported:

• Feeling unsafe attending work

• Fear of retaliation

• Loss of trust in senior staff.

This aligns with psychosocial hazards including:

• Bullying and harassment

• Poor supervisory behaviour

• Organisational justice failures.

3. Power imbalance failure

A critical feature:

• Senior worker imposing “discipline” outside formal systems.

This bypasses:

• Procedural fairness

• Organisational controls

• Leadership accountability.

Executive and Officer due diligence insights

For Boards and Officers, this case provides clear signals about what must be actively verified, not assumed.

Governance failures exposed

• Informal cultural practices overriding formal rules

• Lack of enforcement of “cardinal safety rules”

• Inadequate supervision of experienced workers

• Failure to detect early warning signs of behavioural drift.

Due diligence expectations

Officers should be able to demonstrate:

• Clear prohibition of horseplay/hazing

  • Explicit in procedures and reinforced operationally

• Verification of behavioural compliance

  • Not just safety metrics, but observed behaviours

• Supervisor capability assurance

  • Training in performance management vs misconduct

• Psychosocial risk monitoring

  • Mechanisms for apprentices/juniors to raise concerns safely

• Response systems that act early

  • Intervention before escalation to dismissal-level events.

Leadership lesson: mentoring is not intimidation

The Commission made an important observation:

Apprentices benefit from exposure to experienced workers, but only when that relationship is constructive.

This case illustrates a failure to distinguish between:

• Coaching → structured, respectful, capability-building

• Hazing → coercive, unsafe, and often humiliating.

The worker:

• Inserted himself repeatedly into the apprentice’s “orbit”

• Became overbearing and antagonistic

• Failed to recognise the apprentice’s discomfort.

Practical takeaways

1. Eliminate “legacy culture” risks

If phrases like:

• “That’s how we were trained”

• “It’s just a joke”

…still exist in your organisation, they are leading indicators of risk.

2. Treat horseplay as a system failure

Do not frame incidents as:

• Individual misconduct only.

Instead assess:

• Why the system allowed it

• What controls are in place to prevent the behaviour

• Where supervision and reinforcement failed.

3. Strengthen apprentice protections

Junior workers require:

• Clear escalation pathways

• Psychological safety to speak up

• Active supervision, not passive reliance on senior workers.

4. Separate performance management from discipline

The worker attempted to:

• Correct performance through unsafe behaviour.

This highlights the need for:

• Formal, trained, and auditable performance processes.

HR procedures are critical controls for setting the tone and managing unacceptable behaviour.

Bottom line

This decision confirms a decisive shift:

Hazing is no longer cultural, it is a breach of safety law, organisational duty, and leadership accountability.

In safety critical environments, the tolerance for “informal discipline” is effectively zero.

Organisations that fail to recognise this are not just exposed to unfair dismissal claims they are exposed to serious WHS breaches, psychosocial harm, and governance failure.