Can you be dismissed for speeding? These two cases say yes

An emergency response worker who was dismissed for speeding on the way to a fire has had his Fair Work Commission claim rejected. The worker, who worked on a Queensland mine site, was clocked doing almost double the speed limit.

Given the dangers of speeding, even in emergency circumstances it can serve as a valid reason for termination. In this article, we look at the specific reasons why the worker had his claim dismissed in the case Paul Conicella v MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue Pty Ltd T/A MSS [2025].

We’ll also look at another case involving a truck driver who was fired for speeding a third time. While he ultimately won his case, the seriousness of his misconduct saw him awarded neither reinstatement nor financial compensation.  

Make sure you choose the right representation for your unfair dismissal claim

The two cases also provide a lesson in why you need to think carefully about who you choose to represent you at the Fair Work Commission. In the first case, the worker chose to represent himself at his unfair dismissal hearing, where he revealed details that ultimately ruined his claim.

In the second case, the worker hired an unpaid representative to handle his claim and provide evidence. This evidence, as the Fair Work Commission duly noted, was contradictory and served to undo his claim.

Speeding emergency worker gets wrecked at Fair Work Commission

Paul Conicella worked as an emergency response supervisor at MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue. The company provides medical, rescue and security services across various industries, including mining. Mr Conicella worked at the Saraji mine site in Queensland. The site is operated by BHP Mitsubishi Alliance, a client of MSS.

On 24 April 2024, Mr Conicella drove an emergency vehicle along the site’s haul road in response to a fire emergency elsewhere on the site. However, his emergency vehicle was clocked at 113 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometre zone. After being told that the fire had been extinguished and there was no immediate threat to life, he reduced his speed to 90 kilometres per hour.

Following this incident, Mr Conicella was denied access to the mine site by BHP Mitsubishi Alliance. On 20 August 2024, he was dismissed by MSS for serious misconduct.

Worker argued speeding was not serious misconduct

Mr Conicella subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. He sought reinstatement to his position, or if that was not possible, compensation. Mr Conicella argued to the Commission that his speeding did not amount to serious misconduct. He said that it was justified as he had concerns about potential fire reignition. 

MSS cited two reasons for the termination. First, that its client BHP Mitsubishi Alliance had withdrawn Mr Conicella’s site access, making it impossible for him to fulfil his role. Secondly, for his multiple safety breaches that constituted serious misconduct.

Worker digs himself further into hole

Mr Conicella represented himself at his Fair Work Commission hearing in January 2025. Under questioning, he revealed more details about the speeding incident that ultimately worked against his unfair dismissal claim.

When questioned about the speeding incident, Mr Conicella revealed that while driving he used a handheld radio with one hand. He also revealed that he was unaware if his passenger, a paramedic emergency officer, had her seatbelt secured. Mr Conicella said he did not know as the officer was getting dressed at the time.

He said that typically the paramedic emergency officer would drive the emergency vehicle. However, before getting in the vehicle the officer was trying to get dressed. Rather than wait for her to finish, he decided to drive while she got dressed.

Worker’s arguments slammed by Fair Work

He also told the Fair Work Commission that he had not received training to drive an emergency vehicle in 20 years. The Commission said that the training he received was “unclear.” It was not satisfied that Mr Conicella was adequately trained to drive in emergency situations.

The Commission heard how Mr Conicella dropped the vehicle’s speed to 90 kilometres per hour after hearing that the fire had been put out. However, when asked why he did not drop to the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit, he said that he had not done so because of the “risk of reignition.”

Mr Conicella said he did not know for how long he drove at 90 kilometers per hour. The Fair Work Commission said this statement was “hard to believe.” It concluded that he had driven over the speed limit long enough for there to be “some ongoing risk.” The Commission also accepted that there was no MSS policy that allowed Mr Conicella to break the speed limit. 

Speeding was ‘very dangerous’ given recent fatality

The Fair Work Commission preferred the evidence provided by the BHP Mitsubishi Alliance site supervisor. He said that there was “no grey area” in breaking the speed limit even in the face of an emergency. The Commission also heard that the site had recently experienced a fatality involving a speeding vehicle. 

Given this evidence, the Commission said that it “should have been clear” to Mr Conicella that speeding was “very dangerous.”

Fair Work found worker’s speeding was ‘unacceptable’

The Fair Work Commission considered whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. It said that Mr Conicella’s decision to break the speed limit was “unacceptable.” It noted that he did not know if his passenger was wearing a seatbelt, and that he had used a handheld radio while driving. 

The Commission also noted that Mr Conicella was not properly trained for emergency driving. It also took issue with the fact that he continued to break the speed limit despite being told the fire had been put out and there was no threat to life. 

Mr Conicella had been employed by MSS for 20 months. The Commission considered his employment history and recent disciplinary record in reaching its decision. Ultimately, it ruled that the dismissal was not unfair. Mr Conicella’s unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.

Truckie sacked for speeding earns hollow victory at Fair Work Commission 

The following events were detailed in the unfair dismissal case James Folwell v Primeline Contracting Pty Ltd T/A Hi-Trans Express [2020]. James Folwell started working for freight company Primeline Contracting in February 2015 as a line haul driver. His role involved long-distance freight transport, which included driving B-double trucks. These trucks consist of a prime mover and two trailers. The trucks were fitted with various monitoring systems, including a speed limiter designed to prevent trucks from exceeding 100 kilometres per hour.

This speed limit could be exceeded, however, while travelling downhill. The trucks were also fitted with a global positioning system and an engine control module monitoring system. These provided real-time tracking of truck location and speed. These systems generated alerts when a vehicle exceeded 106 kilometres per hour, with a second alert triggered at 116 kilometres per hour.

Driver broke speed limit multiple times

The first time Mr Folwell fell afoul of Primeline Contracting’s speed regulations was in March 2018. The monitoring systems in his truck clocked his speed in excess of 16 kilometres per hour over the limit. He was given a formal warning for this. But only about five months later, Mr Folwell was yet again clocked exceeding the speed limit by the exact same margin.

Then on 9 October 2019, Primeline Contracting’s national linehaul manager received an alert that Mr Folwell had again clocked a speed of 116 kilometres per hour. The manager called Mr Folwell to ask if he was aware he was speeding. The latter said that he may have been speeding but did not think he reached 116 kilometres per hour.

Claimed he couldn’t see speedometer, brakes didn’t work

The manager subsequently told Mr Folwell that he would be placed on suspension while Primeline Contracting investigated the speeding incident. In a meeting a few days later, Mr Folwell and his support person provided explanations for the incident. He once again denied that he reached a speed of 116 kilometres per hour.

Mr Folwell said that he had broken the speed limit because he was fatigued due to a restless previous night. He also claimed that the truck he drove that day was unfamiliar to him. Mr Folwell also argued that the speedometer in the truck was hard to see given his sitting position and large size. He also claimed that when the truck reached 103 kilometres per hour, the brakes did not operate efficiently enough to reduce speed.

Mr Folwell’s support person also vouched for him, highlighting his long service to the company and his otherwise good driving record.

Truckie’s representative made a mess of unfair dismissal claim

On 15 October 2019, Mr Folwell was told that his employment with Primeline Contracting had been terminated. The company cited the three speeding incidents as the reason. Mr Folwell subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission with the help of an unpaid representative.

The representative was a Transport Workers’ Union of Australia delegate for Primeline Contracting. He submitted oral and written evidence on Mr Folwell’s behalf, arguing that he had been unfairly sacked. The Fair Work Commission, however, noted the contradictions between the oral and written evidence.

The representative had written that Primeline Contracting’s allegations of speeding against Mr Folwell were “capricious, fanciful and spiteful.” However, in his oral submission the representative said that Mr Folwell’s position on the allegations has “never been about denial.”

Fair Work noted disagreement between truck and rep

The Fair Work Commission said that it was “very difficult” to reconcile these contradictions about Mr Folwell’s position on the speeding allegations. It said that despite the oral submission denying his fault, there was ultimately “an acceptance” that Mr Folwell admitted that they had occurred.

The Commission noted that the oral submissions appeared to show that Mr Folwell disagreed with his representative about the truth of the allegations. But that later on, they chose not to deny the allegations and instead focus on factors that could “mitigate” his misconduct.

Employer refuted truckie’s excuses

Primeline Contracting, meanwhile, was far more organised in its arguments to the Fair Work Commission. The company contended that it had rightly dismissed Mr Folwell given the “seriousness” of the third speeding incident. It noted that he had broken the speed limit while driving a truck weighing “60 odd tonnes” on a public road. 

Primeline Contracting also highlighted that the termination was justified given Mr Folwell’s two previous speeding violations. It refuted his claims that braking issues or unfamiliarity with the truck contributed to the third incident. The company said that Mr Folwell’s claim that he could not control the speed of the truck was “a lie.”

The company also refuted his claim that he could not see the speedometer due to his large size. It said that it was “perfectly feasible” for him to see the speedometer simply by “moving his head.”

Truckie’s ‘unfounded’ arguments backfire at Fair Work hearing

At Mr Folwell’s unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission did not look favourably upon him and his representative’s claims. It said that their attempts to offer explanations or mitigations for his speeding violations served only to “discredit” their case. Rather than mitigate his misconduct, their claims “only served to provide additional foundation” for Primeline Contracting’s loss of trust in him.

The Commission labelled the claims made by the duo as “unfounded, spurious and unlikely.” It said that there was no evidence to suggest that he had been unfamiliar with the truck or that it had an issue with its brakes.

Failure to log into GPS provided ‘well-founded’ reason for dismissal

The Fair Work Commission also noted that Mr Folwell only needed to “move his head to one side” in order to see the speedometer. It also said that on the day of the third speeding incident he had not logged into the truck’s GPS. The system, the Commission said, would have given him a warning when the truck reached 106 kilometres per hour, then again when it clocked 116 kilometres per hour.

It was emphasised that Mr Folwell had an obligation to log into the GPS to ensure the avoidance of driver fatigue. The Commission said that the failure to log in alone provided a “sound, well-founded and defensible reason” to sack him.  

Employer slammed for ‘callous’ phone dismissal

However, despite finding that Primeline Contracting had a valid reason to dismiss Mr Folwell, the Fair Work Commission found it had made an error when sacking him. The Commission noted that he had initially been fired over the phone. Mr Folwell was later sent his termination in written form that night.

It was noted that an employee should not be notified of their dismissal over the phone, text message or other electronic communication. The Commission said it must be done “face to face” and to do otherwise was “unnecessarily callous.”

Truckie won case but got nothing

After reviewing all the evidence, the Fair Work Commission confirmed that Mr Folwell had violated the speeding limit and had two prior warnings for the same. It said that Primeline Contracting correctly labelled it as a “critical infringement and gross breach of safety.”

However, this valid reason for termination was offset by the denial of procedural fairness. The Commission said that as he was informed via phone, Mr Folwell did not have the chance to “show cause” to keep his job. It was therefore “inescapable” that his termination had been “harsh.” 

The Fair Work Commission ultimately ruled that Mr Folwell had been unfairly dismissed. However, it was a hollow victory for him, as the Commision deemed ordering his reinstatement or compensation inappropriate. 

Have you been unfairly dismissed?

You need to act quick if you want to make a claim with the Fair Work Commission. You only have 21 days from the day of your dismissal to do so. Give us a call now on 1800 333 666 to get the help you need to make the best case. Your first consultation with us is free and private, and we offer a no win, no fee service.

Find similar articles to “Need for speed: slow down in the workplace”

Dismissed for disobedience: When workers make a stand

Disciplinary Meeting, what happens when your employer