A veteran Australia Post driver who took a work vehicle on a lunch run to KFC while on the clock has failed to overturn his dismissal.

The worker, based in Newcastle, NSW, had been employed with the delivery service for 36 years before getting his marching orders in September, 2025.

He was let go off the back of what the Australian Postal Corporation alleged was “serious and wilful misconduct”, but the former driver and sorter argued his dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable when the case was heard in May.

Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today

The Fair Work Commission ultimately sided with the employer, finding the worker had been afforded “procedural fairness” and that there was a “valid reason” for relieving him of his duties.

Among several reasons used to support the dismissal, Australia Post said the staff member had not sought permission to use a work vehicle to get lunch at KFC in Mayfield on May 7, 2025, and had failed to inform a supervisor where he was.

‘I’m going to have some fun’

The worker was entitled to a 30-minute unpaid lunch break but it was claimed he did not take it at the scheduled time of 10.40am, and that he was absent for more than an hour.

“(He) was aware that he was required to let his supervisor know if he was taking a lunch break at a different time or location,” Australia’s workplace tribunal deputy president Tony Saunders said.

Australia Post claimed the worker was unreasonable, disrespectful and evasive when asked to explain where he went in the work vehicle.

In one exchange he allegedly told a manager “I’m going to have some fun for the next two years” and “I probably have another two years left before I retire”.

The worker denied making those comments.

An Australia Post worker was dismissed following a KFC lunch run. Credit: AAP

In defending the lay-off, Australia Post claimed the veteran team member had also left work 30 minutes early without permission multiple times, and could not be reached when he was absent on 19 occasions between May 23 and June 26, 2025.

Managers sent about 17 messages to his mobile phone, asking if he was OK because he had not notified them he was not coming in.

The worker claimed he thought the messages were a scam, despite responding to two of them.

Saunders said the worker did not give a satisfactory explanation when asked why he did not just call his workplace to check whether the text messages were genuine.

“It is crystal clear from these responses that (the worker) knew that the text messages were being sent to him by his employer,” the commission’s deputy president said.

“In fact, by sending messages to (his) mobile phone, (Australia Post) was communicating with him in a manner that was consistent with what he told (his employer) was his ‘best contact method’.

“I am satisfied that sending his responses after hours, at a time when he knew the work phone was not being manned, was one of the ‘games’ (the worker) was playing.

“(The worker) also said in his evidence that, at some point, he blocked the text messages he was receiving in relation to his non-attendance at work.

“If he did so, this was another ‘game’ he was playing to avoid having a discussion with (Australia Post) management about legitimate workplace issues.”

The Australia Post worker said he thought texts from his employer were scam messages. File image Credit: Australia Post

During his absence, Australia Post also sent letters and emails, and directed a delivery officer to his home for a welfare check.

The worker was on a reduced workload — having been diagnosed with acute stress reaction — when his time at the postal service began to crumble.

Saunders said the worker “was clearly suffering from mental health difficulties” from May until his dismissal, and that those matters did weigh in support of his claim the “dismissal was harsh”.

But he did not accept the employee’s evidence “that he believed he was absent from work on authorised sick leave”, “nor was he incapacitated and unfit to undertake any work at the time”.

’Repugnant’ conduct

Saunders said the worker’s conduct was “of such a grave nature as to be repugnant to the employment relationship”.

“(The worker) was unwilling to comply with lawful and reasonable directions to speak with managers — even when he had no knowledge of what they wanted to talk about, contact his employer about his absence from work, obtain permission from his supervisor before leaving work early for the day, and let his supervisor know if he was taking lunch at a time and place different from that stated in his duty statement for his shift,” Saunders said.

“A meaningful employment relationship cannot exist when an employee demonstrates an ongoing failure and refusal to co-operate with their employer. “

While the axing was “difficult for him personally and financially”, Saunders did not consider the dismissal “disproportionate to the gravity of the conduct in which he engaged”.

Australia Post said it welcomed the Fair Work Commission’s findings.

“We play an important role in delivering for the community and have high standards of conduct for all team members,” a spokesperson said in a statement.