Fair Work Commission Upholds Dismissal of Driver After $100k Ice Cream Loss

The $100,000 Ice Cream Incident at ERH Refrigerated Transport

The dispute centers on a delivery task undertaken on December 3, when driver Jeremiah Manly was assigned to transport ice cream from a cold storage facility in Truganina, Melbourne, to Wagga Wagga. The trailer’s refrigeration unit was set to -1C instead of the required -22C. By the time the error was discovered, the load had defrosted and required disposal.

The financial impact of the blunder was substantial. ERH Refrigerated Transport provided evidence to the commission that the spoiled ice cream was valued at $73,796, with an additional $30,000 incurred for disposal costs, bringing the total loss to more than $100,000. As noted by the SMH, the error was eventually corrected by a night manager remotely at 1:00 a.m. the following day, roughly 15 hours after the initial collection.

Fair Work Commission Findings on Driver Accountability

In his ruling, Commissioner Damian Sloan rejected the driver’s arguments that he was not solely responsible for the loss. While Mr. Manly suggested that the cold storage facility or a secondary driver might share blame, the commission emphasized that the primary failure rested with the operator.

Damian Sloan, Fair Work Commissioner

The commission identified that the driver had six distinct opportunities to verify the trailer’s temperature during the transit but failed to do so on every occasion. Commissioner Sloan dismissed the possibility of a mechanical fault, noting that the company’s night manager successfully adjusted the settings remotely, proving the unit was operational.

Procedural Fairness and the “Bolted Horse” Metaphor

A significant point of contention during the hearing was the company’s handling of the dismissal. ERH terminated Mr. Manly five days after the incident, during a meeting where the decision had already been finalized. Commissioner Sloan acknowledged that this process lacked procedural fairness.

“To give an employee an opportunity to respond after a decision had been taken to dismiss them would be like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. By the time of the meeting … the horse had bolted.”

Damian Sloan, Fair Work Commissioner

Despite this finding, the commission concluded that the outcome would likely not have changed had the procedure been followed correctly. The driver’s inability to explain the failure during the meeting, combined with the severity of the financial loss, led the commission to uphold the dismissal. Mr. Sloan characterized the incident as a one-off but emphasized that the consequences of the driver’s actions were entirely foreseeable and resulted in significant commercial damage.

Employment History and Maintenance Claims

During the proceedings, the driver attempted to introduce evidence regarding maintenance issues, specifically claiming the trailer’s rear doors would not shut properly. The commissioner gave this evidence little weight, noting that it was raised for the first time at the hearing and did not account for the incorrect temperature setting. Furthermore, the commission observed that if the doors had been left open, the tracked temperature data would have shown an increase, which was not supported by the evidence.

The driver’s employment history also surfaced during the case. He had previously received a warning in 2025 related to an incident where he allegedly drove a truck from Wagga Wagga to Melbourne while the trailer was meant to be empty, without notifying the company. While Commissioner Sloan noted this history, he concluded it was not of particular significance to the current dismissal, which was upheld primarily due to the magnitude of the ice cream loss and the failure to verify equipment settings.

Find more reporting in our Business section.