A Qantas manager's failure to seek sufficient HR advice and his close relationship with one of two employees at the centre of an alleged incident meant that his investigation was sufficiently flawed to render the dismissal of a long-serving flight attendant unfair, the Fair Work Commission has found.

The FWC ordered Qantas to reinstate the flight attendant it dismissed for serious misconduct, after the airline found she had attempted to fly without medical clearance and had a physical altercation with a manager.

However, Commissioner Michael Roberts said he did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to support either of these findings.

He said the flight attendant had been "too clever by half" in presenting a WorkCover certificate that would allow her to fly but not take part in refresher training (she had taken stress leave after allegedly being bullied by colleagues, and the certificate sought to ensure she wouldn't have contact with them) .

"However, this does not mean that [she] intended to attend for duty on 17 February 2013 in the knowledge that the WorkCover certificate would not allow her to resume cabin crew duties," Commissioner Roberts said.

In relation to the second ground for dismissal, Commissioner Roberts said he believed that a "very short tussle for possession" of the WorkCover certificate took place between the employee and her manager, but that the flight attendant's "actions were not grave enough to be considered serious misconduct and were a minor species of misconduct".

He said he believed that the flight attendant's attempt to take the certificate back was "inconsistent with her character and work history at Qantas".

Flawed investigation provided no basis for conclusion

Commissioner Roberts found that the Qantas cabin crew manager who dismissed the flight attendant carried out his investigation into her alleged misconduct in good faith, but his investigation was "flawed and ultimately reached conclusions that were not available to him on the evidence".

Commissioner Roberts said by the time the manager dismissed the employee he had become aware that a key witness, a cabin crew supervisor, had provided an "entirely fictitious" account of the incident involving the two employees and the rest of his allegations were "apparently created out of thin air".

"Unless [the witness] had an unusually vivid fantasy life, then I can only conclude that he intended to mislead the [cabin crew manager] and consequently to harm the [flight attendant]", he said.

"I strongly recommend to Qantas that the actions of [the witness] be the subject of investigation and appropriate action", he said.

Commission Roberts said that unsigned statements submitted by 12 other cabin crew members in the vicinity had all reported seeing "nothing unusual" on the day in question.

"The mystery here is why the withdrawal of [the witness's] evidence, the physical state of the [WorkCover] certificate and the statements from 12 cabin crew employees did not spur" the cabin crew manager to further investigate or "at least to take advice from Qantas Human Resources".

Commissioner Roberts said that he thought the key to the manager's action was his "high personal and professional regard" for the other employee involved in the alleged incident and that he was unable to believe that this employee's "narrative was anything but totally credible".

"Even when supporting evidence either vanished. . . or was not forthcoming as in the twelve cabin crew statements or was not apparent, as in the physical state of the Certificate," he said.

Commissioner Roberts said the case underlined the importance of ensuring that investigators of alleged workplace incidents "should never be on such close terms with one of the parties".

He reinstated the flight attendant, after taking into account her "obvious bad feelings" towards some Qantas managers.

The way she had used the WorkCover certificates also gave him "further pause for thought", but on balance he said the employment relationship could be re-established with goodwill on both sides and a willingness on the flight attendant's part to undergo training.

He reinstated her, but discounted her compensation, because of her impulsive and improper initiation of the "tug of war" with the cabin crew manager.

Keiko Adachi v Qantas Airways Limited [2014] FWC 518 (10 February 2014)