I have previously reported on the fate of two Fire Rescue Victoria employees who were suspended following adverse findings by the Independent Broad Based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) – see Suspension of FRV employees after anti-corruption inquiry confirmed (May 1, 2025).  The matter has progressed with a successful appeal to the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission in United Firefighters’ Union of Australia v Fire Rescue Victoria [2025] FWCFB 177.

The complaint by the UFU raised a number of issues.  In my original post I said, amongst other things:

… Commissioner Freeman suspended the employees on 1 October.  After discussion with the UFU and settlement of a dispute with respect to the terms of the correspondence a fresh decision was made, also by Commissioner Freeman, on 24 October. The UFU’s submission (at [66]) was:

…  essentially that because FRV Commissioner Freeman had been involved in the original correspondence, there might be an apprehension on the part of the fair-minded lay observer of bias, with the possibility that he was so committed to suspending the two employees, he was incapable of altering that view.

Commissioner Wilson found no evidence to support a claim of bias.

The Full Bench disagreed. They held that the earlier decision and correspondence between the UFU and the Commissioner meant ‘that a fair-minded lay observer might conclude that Mr Freeman might not have brought an impartial mind to the question of whether Ms Pyliotis and Mr Trakas should be suspended when making the decision recorded in the letters dated 27 November 2024’ ([63]).

In the earlier decision the Commission had determined that it did not have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the union and FRV as there had been no failure to comply with the dispute resolution clause in the enterprise agreement.  The finding by the Full Bench that there had been a denial of natural justice because of the potential bias of the decision maker meant that there had been a breach of the dispute resolution clause and therefore the Commission did have jurisdiction. The Full Bench did not therefore decide any issue about the status of the employees or their ongoing suspension. Rather they referred the matter back to a single member of the Commission to determine.

Conclusion

This decision confirmed that Ms Pyliotis and Mr Trakas had been denied natural justice when the Commissioner made his final decision to suspend them pending further investigation.  The Full Bench did not resolve the issues of their suspension but did remit the matter back to the Commission for further decision.  I will keep my eye out and report on any further decision by the Commission in this matter.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.