Spring is in the air, and the festive season is rapidly approaching. With it will come a very frequent question for employers: Can we regulate the conduct of our staff for out of hours conduct (for example, where it occurs after workplace functions?) A recent unfair dismissal decision of the Fair Work Commission has affirmed that they can, where this is a sufficient connection to work.
In Cameron Bell v Arts Centre Melbourne [2026] FWC 3212, the FWC considered an unfair dismissal application by Cameron Bell, who had been employed by Arts Centre Melbourne as a Building Maintenance Officer since January 2020.
Mr Bell was summarily dismissed following an incident on 9 December 2024 after the employer’s Christmas party. A group of employees ‘kicked on’ to a nearby venue, during which Mr Bell had an altercation with a colleague (Ben Anderson), involving Mr Bell hitting Mr Anderson in the head, causing him to fall into a heater and then to the ground.
Arts Centre Melbourne suspended Mr Bell on pay the next day, investigated the incident (including interviewing Mr Bell), and summarily dismissed him on 19 December 2024 for serious misconduct. Mr Bell filed an unfair dismissal application in January 2025.
In its decision published on 24 August 2026, the FWC preferred the evidence that Mr Bell delivered a punch (rather than a mere “shove”) and found the conduct was not self-defence and was not mitigated by provocation.
Importantly for employers, the FWC also found there was a sufficient connection (“nexus”) between the out-of-hours conduct and Mr Bell’s employment, including because the incident occurred in close proximity to the workplace, involved co-workers immediately after a work event, and had clear implications for health and safety and the ongoing working relationship.
Regarding the ‘kicking on’ aspect, Commissioner Perica stated as follows:
There is at least some nexus between the work Christmas Party and the group of ACM workers coming together at Beer DeLuxe. Mr. Bell and Mr. Anderson’s presence at Beer DeLuxe was not in any way organised, authorised or proposed by ACM, but they were only at the location and in the company of each other as consequence of attendance at the earlier ACM Christmas Party.
The FWC was satisfied Arts Centre Melbourne had a valid reason for dismissal (serious misconduct), that summary dismissal was proportionate, and that Mr Bell was afforded procedural fairness (including being notified of the allegations, advised of the seriousness, offered the option of a support person, and given an opportunity to respond). The unfair dismissal application was dismissed.
The key takeaway? Don’t assume “it happened after hours” is the beginning and end of the matter. The key question is whether there is a sufficient connection to the workplace which would permit an employer to regulate (and make disciplinary decisions in relation to) the behaviour in question. To further bolster your position, ensure your contracts, codes of conduct, and policies expressly apply to behaviour connected with work events and interactions between staff outside of hours.
Naturally, having a valid reason for dismissal is not enough in and of itself, and a procedurally fair process must also apply (including taking appropriate steps to investigate alleged conduct).
If you would like Emplawyer to review your policies, investigation steps, or a proposed disciplinary/termination process, please contact a member of our team.
