We have often seen animals feature in unfair dismissal cases
We have often seen animals feature in unfair dismissal cases, some of which we have previously covered on this blog. Some of the more notable cases include a worker who was fired for running over his boss’s pet, Crackers the parrot. Also, a WFH council worker who broke their arm while tripping over a puppy fence. Its time to visit this subject again.
In this article, we look at three recent unfair dismissal cases where animals featured prominently, even causing the termination of the worker. This includes a security worker who blamed his employer for the death of his dog.
Also, we look at a story from the UK of a teenage fast-food worker who was fired for taking a day off to mourn her dog’s death. And finally, we share the story of a New Zealand vet who won an unfair dismissal payout of NZ$35,000 after being sacked for attempting to euthanize a cow by choking it.
Security officer who blamed dog’s death on employer gets dismissed
This story relates to the Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal case Shane Timmins v Alpha K9 Security Pty Ltd [2025]. Shane Timmins began working for Alpha K9 Security as a casual security officer in November 2022. The company offers security services, including those involving security guard dogs. When Mr. Timmins joined the company, he said that he had several security dogs of his own. He told Alpha K9 Security that he wished to do security work with his dogs.
During his time at the company, most of the work conducted by Mr. Timmins was with one of his own security dogs. He said that he did not want to perform work that required interacting with the public.
Clashed over use of tracking app
Early in his employment with Alpha K9 Security, Mr. Timmins raised concerns about his superannuation. He also said that he was not provided his pay slips or timesheets. He also complained about being paid in cash, which the company soon ceased afterwards.
But the key issue that started Mr. Timmins’ troubles was in regard to Alpha K9 Security ‘s policy. It required security officers to use a Uni Guard application. This would verify that security officers had conducted patrols at specific times and locations.
Mr. Timmins, however, refused to install the app on his personal mobile phone as he felt there were digital security concerns. He proposed that instead the company could provide him with a mobile phone or he could purchase a separate mobile phone. He thought he could then install the app and be reimbursed for this expense.
Offered less shifts due to refusal to use app
Mr. Timmins’ proposal was however rejected by Alpha K9 Security. The company then ceased offering him shifts requiring the Uni Guard app. This was because several clients required security officers to use the app.
On 26 June 2024, Alpha K9 Security offered Mr. Timmins a shift. He arrived to the worksite early and encountered a colleague who had also been offered the shift. A manager later texted Mr. Timmins saying that he was not needed for the shift and “can go home.” Mr. Timmins responded by saying “I need to be paid for my time.” The manager said that the company would not pay him, to which Mr. Timmins said “Yes, you will.”
‘This is bullsh*t’: Worker told to go home
Mr. Timmins said that the situation was “not acceptable” and complained about not getting pay slips and not being paid correctly. He said that Alpha K9 Security was “not doing the correct things.” Mr. Timmins then spoke to his colleague, who said he was being paid in cash. Mr. Timmins told him that the situation he was in was “bullsh*t” and that “this mob is not paying correctly and doing the right thing.”
The employee told the Fair Work Commission that he believed his colleague received the shift because he consented to being paid in cash. He was subsequently paid for four hours of the shift by Alpha K9 Security. His manager also apologized for the confusion. He told the Commission that it was caused by an “innocent miscommunication.”
Raised pay issues
A few days later, Mr. Timmins worked what would turn out to be his final shift for Alpha K9 Security. He was scheduled for another shift but was later told that he would be replaced. This was because the client required the use of the Uni Guard app. The company, however, said that it would have “more K9 work coming up shortly.”
Over the next month or so, Mr. Timmins corresponded with Alpha K9 Security regarding pay slips, payments and superannuation. He claimed that he had not received payments due to the company not adhering to the Security Services Industry Award. The company provided him his pay slips, apart from those for the first four weeks of his employment. It also gave him access to its payroll system to see info about his pay.
‘I had to put my beautiful boy down’: Blamed euthanasia of dog on employer
On 12 August 2024, Mr. Timmins’ dog, Ragnar, had an emergency. Surgery was needed, however, he was not able to front the cost. He therefore chose to euthanize Ragnar. Mr. Timmins told the Fair Work Commission that he blamed Alpha K9 Security for having to put his dog down. He claimed that had he been paid properly under his award, he would have been able to pay for the surgery.
Days later, one of the company’s managers emailed Mr. Timmins hoping to resolve the underpayment issue. The manager said that he wanted to resolve it so they could “both be happy to move forward from here.” Mr. Timmins responded via email saying that “unless you have the power to turn back time” the issue could not be resolved.
He said that “I had to put my beautiful boy down” as he did not have the money to pay for the surgery. Mr. Timmins also said that it was “evident” that he had been dismissed by Alpha K9 Security. He claimed that the company had replaced him with someone willing to be paid in cash and because he had complained about his pay slips and pay rate.
Claimed employer repudiated contract
Mr. Timmins filed his unfair dismissal application on 6 September 2024, claiming his dismissal took effect on 17 August 2024. He also provided varying dates for his perceived termination in documents submitted to Centrelink and the Commission.
In his unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Timmins argued to the Fair Work Commission that Alpha K9 Security had forced him to resign. He claimed this was the case as he was not offered shifts and had been replaced for a scheduled shift. He also claimed he was forced to resign by the company underpaying him, not paying his superannuation and not providing pay slips for the four-week period.
Mr. Timmins argued that Alpha K9 Security not providing him shifts from June 2024 onwards constituted “repudiatory conduct.” He argued that this entitled him to terminate his employment contract.
Fair Work found worker was not forced to resign
At his unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission found several faults with Mr. Timmins’ arguments. It did not agree that Alpha K9 Security’s failure to provide him with shifts repudiated his employment contract. This was because he was a casual and therefore had “no contractual entitlement” to further shifts.
The Commission recognized that Mr. Timmins worked for the company on average for 43 hours per week. But this still did not give him the “right” to “work regular or systematic” hours in the future. The Commission also concluded that Mr. Timmins’ employment was not terminated at Alpha K9 Security’s initiative.
It was noted that the company had told him that it expected to offer more shifts. It had also attempted to resolve his concerns and indicated a desire to maintain the employment relationship.
Had other options than resigning
The Fair Work Commission concluded that Alpha K9 Security offered less work to Mr. Timmins because of his refusal to use the Uni Guard app. It accepted the company’s evidence that a client, Maitland Council site, required the Uni Guard app. It also accepted that other employees were offered work there because they complied with this requirement.
The Commission did not agree with Mr. Timmins’ claim that Alpha K9 Security had provided his colleagues with work over him because they agreed to cash payments. It found that he had resigned willingly on 17 August 2024. This was because he was “very upset” about the passing of his dog, which he blamed on his employer.
The Commission said that Mr Timmins had other options than resigning. This included obtaining security work with other employers, while still remaining on Alpha K9 Security’s “books.” It also said that he could have escalated his underpayment issue via the dispute resolution process outlined in his award or via the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Underpayments did not force resignation
With regard to his alleged underpayments, the Fair Work Commission said Mr. Timmins did not provide details to back up his claims. It said that had he raised the issue in a “measured and detailed way,” Alpha K9 Security would have likely aimed to resolve it. The Commission stated that the underpayments did not mean Mr. Timmins was forced to resign. Given all these findings, Mr Timmins’ unfair dismissal application was rejected.
Teen worker fired for taking day off to mourn dog’s death
This story from the UK made global news headlines in August 2019. It involved 18-year-old Glasgow woman Emma McNulty, who alleged that she was dismissed from her fast-food job after taking a day off due to the death of her pet dog. After getting fired, Ms. McNulty started an online petition to compel the powers that be to “allow bereavement leave” for those who experience the death of their pet. The petition received over 29,000 signatures.
In the petition, Ms McNulty wrote that the death of her 14-year-old Yorkshire Terrier, Mia, left her “too devastated and physically sick” to attend work. She described her late dog as a “valued family member.”
Received ‘nasty’ messages from employer
Ms. McNulty said that when she informed her employer of her dog’s death, rather than receiving compassion, her manager sent her several “nasty” messages. Ms. McNulty was told that the restaurant did not provide bereavement leave. She was also told that she needed to find a replacement for her shift starting at 3pm.
Ms. McNulty was unable to do so, and later that day, the restaurant chose to fire her for serious misconduct. This, along with the grief of losing her pet, left her in “extreme distress.” Ms. McNulty said that it was “disgusting” how some employers think it’s acceptable to treat employers this way with “no remorse.” She said it was time to allow workers the space to grieve pets without the fear of losing their job.
Vet sacked for trying to choke cow wins 35K
This might be the wildest headline you will ever read on our site. This story from New Zealand attracted media attention in November 2024. It involved Tony Austwick, who had worked for Tauranga Veterinary Services for nearly 12 years. He was fired after his employer received three customer complaints about the way he treated animals in his care.
The first complaint, lodged at the end of 2021, concerned a cat that suffered from a limp. Mr. Austwick prescribed painkillers for the cat, which initially appeared effective. However, the owner later got a second opinion from another vet who diagnosed the animal with a rare disease.
Attempted to choke, then shot cow
The second complaint against Mr. Austwick was far more shocking. He had been called in to euthanize a pet cow. Mr. Austwick first tried to euthanize the animal by injecting it with a substantial dose of barbiturates. The cow, however, survived this attempted lethal injection.
So Mr. Austwick chose another method; choking. He attempted to place pressure on the cow’s neck in order to suffocate it. This unorthodox method did not work either, so Mr. Austwick resorted to shooting the cow.
The third complaint came from a dog owner. Mr. Austwick was tasked with doing blood tests for the dog before it went into surgery. The tests proved inconclusive. This prompted the owner to choose the painful decision of euthanizing their dog. However, after the dog was euthanized, it was discovered that the dog actually had diabetes.
Tauranga Veterinary Services said that Mr. Austick, after receiving inconclusive results, should have run the test again. By not doing so, the business blamed him for the death of the dog.
Vet argued he was unfairly dismissed
In April 2022, Tauranga Veterinary Services dismissed Mr Austwick for serious misconduct and gross negligence. The vet, however, felt that he had been unfairly dismissed, so he lodged a claim with New Zealand’s Employment Relations Authority.
He argued to the Authority that none of the three complaints constituted misconduct. Mr Austwick also claimed that his employer did not follow a fair process when terminating his employment.
Procedural deficiencies found
At Mr. Austwick’s unfair dismissal hearing, the Employment Relations Authority examined the circumstances surrounding his termination. It determined that Tauranga Veterinary Services Limited had failed to conduct a fair investigation. It also concluded that the business did not adequately communicate its concerns before deciding to dismiss him.
The Authority found that the three allegations were not properly communicated to Mr. Austwick. It said that this created a “fundamental lack of fairness” as Mr. Austwick was never adequately notified of how serious the complaints were.
Authority found no ongoing mistreatment
Faults were also found with Tauranga Veterinary Services’ dismissal process. The Authority noted that Mr. Austwick had initially been informed that a performance improvement plan would be the likely outcome. This was found to be “untrue.” The Authority said that the business did not meet its obligations to be responsive, communicative and give Mr. Austwick access to relevant information in a timely way.
Regarding whether the three complaints amounted to gross negligence, the Authority acknowledged that Mr. Austwick’s actions “may have fallen short of best practice.” However, it also acknowledged that the three incidents were “clinically distinct.” It noted that the cat’s rare diagnosis and the issues with the cow’s euthanasia were “not part of common practice.”
Vet received huge unfair dismissal payout
The Authority also took Mr. Austwick’s side about the botched euthanasia of the cow. It said that his employer had mischaracterized the incident as an “animal welfare issue.” However, it noted expert evidence that concluded that the cow would have “felt no pain.” Given this assessment of the three complaints, the Authority determined that Mr Austwick’s conduct was “not a case of on-going mistreatment” of animals.
The Employment Relations Tribunal ultimately ruled that Tauranga Veterinary Services Limited had not sufficiently investigated the allegations before deciding to dismiss Mr. Austwick. As a result, the business was ordered to pay him NZ$8,000 in lost wages and NZ$27,000 in compensation.
Conclusion to: Unfair dismissal claims and Animals
Have you been unfairly dismissed?
You only have 21 days from the date of your dismissal to lodge a claim with the Fair Work Commission. Our team can help you quickly take action and ensure you get the compensation you deserve. We understand you, we are a pet friendly workplace.
AWNA help workers all across Australia and offer a no win, no fee service. We are not lawyers. Our team has over three decades’ experience helping workers take action via the Fair Work Commission. All casual employee rights or redundancy concerns call us now
For a free and private consultation, give us a call now on 1800 333 666.
Articles similar to: Unfair dismissal claims and Animals
How much is my unfair dismissal claim worth
