Reckless Conduct Behind the Wheel: Why the FWC Backed IBAC’s Dismissal

The Fair Work Commission has again reinforced that employers are entitled to take decisive action when employee conduct places lives at risk. In Murphy v Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) [2025] FWC 2286, Deputy President Masson dismissed an unfair dismissal claim brought by a Victorian surveillance operative who was sacked after a reckless car pursuit during a covert operation.

Why the FWC Backed IBAC’s Dismissal

The Incident

In May 2024, during a covert IBAC operation, a Mercedes not connected to the investigation backed into a colleague’s car. When the driver attempted to flee, surveillance operative Brent Murphy decided to follow. Although Murphy denied it was a “chase,” he admitted making an illegal right-hand turn across a median strip and lost sight of the vehicle soon after. His superior observed him travelling “at speed” in close pursuit and reported the incident.

Murphy later accused his superior of “stitching him up” and lodged a bullying complaint. However, IBAC alleged he had both driven recklessly and provided a false account of events, breaching multiple internal policies and road safety rules.

IBAC’s Investigation and Dismissal

An external investigator found Murphy had prioritised chasing the Mercedes over checking on his colleague’s welfare. IBAC concluded this showed poor judgment inconsistent with the maturity and discipline required of operatives, and dismissed him with four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.

The Commission’s Findings

Deputy President Masson found:

• Murphy’s remarks about the driver being a “crook” or “shitbag” revealed he was motivated by anger, not instinct.

• His illegal right-hand turn in a dark suburban street placed pedestrians and the public at imminent risk.

• His claim that it was a “misjudgement” displayed “an impressive lack of insight.”

• His account to HR was “patently false and misleading,” compounding the misconduct.

The Commission ruled that his behaviour constituted serious misconduct, providing a valid reason for dismissal. The decision was not “harsh, unjust or unreasonable” under section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Lessons for Employers and Employees

This case underscores several principles:

1. Safety trumps instinct. Employees, particularly in high-risk or sensitive roles, must always act within legal and organisational boundaries, even under pressure.

2. Policies matter. IBAC’s surveillance and vehicle usage policies were decisive—both made clear that safety and compliance with the law are paramount.

3. False statements worsen outcomes. Attempting to reframe events or make accusations against colleagues without evidence will rarely succeed before the Commission.

4. Serious misconduct = valid dismissal. Where behaviour places the public or colleagues at risk, dismissal is likely to be upheld.

The decision illustrates the FWC’s unwillingness to excuse reckless behaviour simply because it occurs in a high-pressure role. It is a warning that even in covert operations, the rule of law and road safety obligations cannot be suspended.