Failing to have a clear process for security clearances or background checks can be costly and not just financially. A recent Fair Work Commission case demonstrates that even unwritten requirements for clearances or access can lead to lawful dismissals, operational disruption, and legal risk for businesses.

In a recent case, a Victorian employee lost his job after he could no longer maintain a Victoria Police security clearance required to perform his role. Although the clearance wasn’t mentioned in his contract, the Commission found that the ability to maintain access to sensitive information was an inherent requirement of the role.

For business owners, the lesson is clear having a formal, well-documented process for security clearances and background checks is essential. From onboarding to ongoing compliance, every step matters.

In March 2026, a Victorian employee lost his job because he could no longer access sensitive police information without a security clearance. Despite arguments that the clearance wasn’t in his contract, the Commission confirmed the dismissal was lawful.

For businesses that rely on security clearances, background checking, professional licences, or other third-party approvals, this case is a critical reminder: unwritten requirements can have serious operational and legal consequences.

When losing access means losing the job

The case involved a former Data Group Lead at Triple Zero Victoria, the authority responsible for emergency call-taking and dispatch services across Victoria. The employee had worked there since 2023, earning approximately $170,000 per year. His role involved managing data within the organisation’s Computer Aided Dispatch system, which contained sensitive information supplied by Victoria Police and other emergency services.

In March 2024, the employee accessed a police database containing confidential information. He later disclosed that information to a third party. This breach led to

A criminal charge from Victoria Police

  • A 12-month good behaviour bond (with no conviction recorded)
  • Revocation of his Victoria Police security clearance

Without that clearance, he could no longer access the systems required for his role. Despite attempts by the employer to have the clearance reinstated, it was ultimately denied. In October 2025, the business terminated his employment.

The employee then lodged an unfair dismissal claim.

The key argument: “It wasn’t in my contract”

The employee argued the dismissal was unfair because

  • His employment contract never mentioned a Victoria Police security clearance
  • The only background requirement listed was a National Police Check
  • He had already received a first and final warning for the disclosure incident

In his view, the matter had already been dealt with through disciplinary action.

However, the Commission took a different view.

The Commission relied on the precedent set by the High Court in Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie.

This case established an important legal principle. A requirement does not need to appear in an employment contract to be an inherent requirement of a role. Because the employee could no longer obtain the security clearance needed to access sensitive police data, he was unable to perform the core duties of the job. As a result, the dismissal was deemed valid. The unfair dismissal application was dismissed.

While the dismissal was upheld, the Commission criticised the employer for one issue, lack of transparency. The Deputy President noted that the business had not clearly communicated the additional security clearance requirement to staff.

In the Commission’s words “The opaqueness of the additional security requirement and process adds to the harshness of the dismissal decision.”

In other words, while the employer still won the case, clear documentation would have made the process far stronger and less contentious.

Why this case matters for business owners

This decision is particularly relevant for businesses where employees rely on external approvals or credentials, such as

  • Security clearances
  • Professional registrations
  • Industry licences
  • Government access permissions
  • Medical clearances
  • Client-specific certifications

If an employee loses one of these, they may instantly become unable to perform their job. If these requirements aren’t clearly documented, the situation can quickly turn into a legal dispute.

The bottom line

This case is a reminder that not every critical job requirement sits neatly inside an employment contract.

When an employee loses access to something essential, like a security clearance or licence, the consequences can be immediate and final. For business owners, the real takeaway is simple, if a requirement is essential to a role, it should be documented, communicated, and regularly reviewed.

Failing to do so can create unnecessary legal risk, confusion, and costly disputes.

Need help reviewing your employment contracts?

Many businesses unknowingly carry risk in outdated contracts, unclear role requirements, or missing compliance documentation. If you’re unsure whether your contracts properly protect your business, now is the time to review them.

Contact us today for a practical review of your employment contracts and HR processes. We can help ensure your documentation clearly reflects the real requirements of your roles, protecting both your business and your employees.