July 1, 2026 — 4:02pmA Melbourne port terminal operator has failed to appeal a Fair Work Commission ruling forcing it to reinstate a wharfie who showed a bikini photo of coworkers in the workplace and was alleged to have used crude language and put his genitals in a colleague’s sandwich.On Tuesday, the commission upheld a decision to force Qube Ports to reinstate the stevedore after concluding that some, but not all, of the allegations against him had been proven.A Melbourne stevedore has regained his job after an attempt to appeal by his employer.Port of MelbourneThe man, who started working at Qube in 2009, was dismissed in January last year and applied for an unfair dismissal remedy the following month backed by the Maritime Union of Australia.His employment had been “without significant incident” until 2024 when he was given formal written warning for breaching the company’s drug and alcohol policy after testing positive for THC.In March 2024, he showed photos of two female co-workers wearing bikinis to other employees during work hours, and was pulled into a meeting to discuss his conduct. In April, he received a first and final warning for his behaviour.One of the employees pictured in the photos expressed concern about being rostered on to work on the same shift as the man later that year, saying she felt physically sick.“He is a known bully in our workplace and having been harassed by him, I know the lengths he goes to, to make someone uncomfortable and unsafe,” she said in an email.In December, she was advised that the man’s conduct was being confidentially investigated.Qube then issued a letter to the man, standing him down from work with pay while the investigation was being conducted.In October 2024, the man was allegedly involved in an incident where he and another man swore at each other over a request to move a toilet car on site. The stevedore, a team leader on the shift, allegedly called his colleague a “condescending c***” and “a useless piece of s***.”In November that year, he allegedly told another employee that he spat in their Subway sandwich and put his genitals in it.The Subway incident was also found to be insufficiently substantiated, with the commissioner noting it was partly based on evidence from someone who had a pre-determined view that the man should have been terminated for his conduct regarding the bikini photo.The stevedore was directed to attend a meeting over the Subway and toilet car incidents which Qube said contravened workplace policies. The man denied the allegations but in January 2025 received a letter advising him that they had been substantiated, and that he was terminated.The fair work umpire found in 2025 that while the man acted inappropriately in showing the bikini photo, including “zooming in on the image in a suggestive and inappropriate way”, it was more probable than not that the photo was shown during an inappropriate conversation among the stevedores about the romantic prospects of one of the co-workers. “[His] conduct did not involve anything that was malicious, predatory, or intentionally harmful amounting to sexual harassment of bullying,” the commissioner said, and was not stated by Qube as a reason for his termination.The commission also said that while the men likely swore at each other in the toilet car incident, there was no finding that the dismissed stevedore had used the exact words alleged, and that it was “well accepted” that swearing on the waterfront was not controversial.Sydney University professor emerita Joellen Riley said if the commission finds behaviour, such as swearing, is generally tolerated in a workplace, it may find dismissing a worker for this reason is unfair.The man’s age and period of service were factors that outweighed his misconduct in the bikini photos incident.Riley said the commission often accounts for a person’s age when considering whether a punishment is harsh.“If someone has had a good track record for a long time, the misconduct is not serious, and they’re 62, it might be seen as harsher to sack them than a 19-year-old who has a better chance of getting re-employed elsewhere,” she said.The commission also said the man was not notified of the reason for his dismissal, nor provided with an opportunity to respond and was treated differently from other workers.In September last year, Qube filed a notice of appeal and was allowed to hold off on reinstating the port worker until a decision had been made on its appeal.Qube’s notice of appeal contained 12 grounds including a claim that swearing to, and at, others, was not commonplace, that the commission had failed to account for the power imbalances between employees involved in the alleged incidents, and that it failed to consider some evidence.Fair Work Commission deputy president Alan Colman concluded that it was not in the public interest to grant permission for Qube to appeal, saying no error had been demonstrated in the decision of the commissioner who made the initial ruling.“[The man]...with 15 years of service...was found on the evidence to have engaged in some but not all of the misconduct alleged against him,” he said, with the dismissal found to be harsh and unjust.The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.Millie Muroi is the economics writer at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. She was formerly an economics correspondent based in Canberra’s Press Gallery and the banking writer based in Sydney.Connect via X or email.From our partners