Apprentice Loses Unfair Dismissal Case Over Persistent Phone Use on Job
An apprentice tradesman who was dismissed for using his mobile phone "over and over again" while on duty has had his unfair dismissal claim rejected by the Fair Work Commission. Sam Murray, employed by SDM Roofing in July 2024 as a minor apprentice with his father signing the contract, was terminated within 18 months after multiple incidents of inappropriate phone usage.
Repeated Warnings and Final Notice
During a hearing at the Fair Work Commission in Victoria, Mr Murray admitted to being on his phone on numerous occasions when he should have been working. He acknowledged that supervisors and managers had spoken to him about this issue repeatedly. In late 2024, he attempted to curb the behaviour by leaving his phone in his tool bag, but stopped this practice because he needed to receive work calls.
On May 7, 2025, a manager issued a "final warning" after a client observed the young tradesman on his phone "over and over again" and "hiding and bludging." The warning stated there was "zero grey area from here on in" and that if anyone in the team or a client saw him "bludging again," he would be sacked. It added, "We are all willing to help you become a successful tradesman, even if it is a slow process."
Catalyst for Termination
However, an incident on December 3, 2025, proved to be the catalyst for Mr Murray's dismissal. His foreman had asked him to prepare a chimney for flashing installation, but when checking on his progress, found him missing. The foreman saw Mr Murray walking up the street with his phone in hand towards his ute, and five minutes later, returning while still holding the device. Mr Murray said "sorry" and put his phone away, but was told to pack his tools and go home.
Later that day, he received an email from his manager terminating his employment. The manager cited being told that Mr Murray was sent home after being seen hiding in or behind his car, again on his phone while meant to be working. The email also referenced a previous task where Mr Murray took five hours instead of two to fix chase flashings on a chimney after not completing it properly the day before, and mentioned prior occasions of phone use.
Defence and Commission Ruling
On December 7, Mr Murray responded, denying he had been hiding but explaining he went to the car to put his pipe gear away and was on his phone on the way back to the job site. He added, "You didn't really give me a chance at all to defend myself." The manager replied the next day, stating he only knew what he had been told and that the inappropriate phone use was an ongoing issue, offering to "catch up in person and have a proper chat." Mr Murray did not respond.
A fortnight later, on December 22, Mr Murray filed an application seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. On Tuesday, Fair Work Commissioner Ben Redford ruled the termination had been fair. He said, "It is clear Mr Murray was on his phone on numerous occasions when he should have been working, whether on this occasion or not." Commissioner Redford noted that while SDM Roofing's method of termination was "less than satisfactory" for a young apprentice, Mr Murray had been given a reasonable chance to rectify the problem after formal warnings and multiple discussions.
Commissioner Redford concluded, "In my view, the evidence indicates that Mr Murray knew full well that his continued use of his phone was a problem, that he shouldn’t be doing it, and that if he kept doing it, he might lose his job." The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to workplace policies on phone use, especially for apprentices under supervision.
