A mining camp cleaner sacked for allegedly going fully nude during a late-night swim at a work party claims he was fired because of his ‘sexual orientation’.

The Fair Work Commission awarded former remote hospitality employee Lester Box almost $10,000 after it found he was unfairly dismissed.

The FWC heard catering and hospitality company Sirrom sacked Box without notice following a ‘social gathering’ at the Centurion Accommodation Village, which is about 20 minutes from a Peabody operated coal mine in central Queensland.

Box, who was staying at the camp, consumed about ‘eight or nine’ alcoholic drinks with other employees and his supervisor before he and a ‘male guest’ jumped into the pool just after 10pm.

It was alleged Box and the other man jumped in naked after being egged on by other male employees at the gathering that the FWC heard was a ‘Christmas celebration’.

Box said he could not remember if he jumped into the pool naked, but said he woke up wearing ‘a pair of quick dry boardies’.  

Sirrom sacked Box without notice after alleging the skinny dip was ‘inappropriate, unsafe and inconsistent with expected standards’.

The termination letter stated Box entered into the ‘site pool naked in the presence of employees’ and ‘consumed alcohol and remained in the deck/pool area after the approved 10.00pm curfew’.

The company had previously stood Box down while they ran an internal investigation.

Sirrom claimed several witnesses, including Box’s supervisor, had ‘independently’ identified him as being naked while in the pool.

One employee alleged in an email that other men had encouraged Box to strip off, and while she did not visually confirm the nudity because she ‘personally did not wish to see that’.

‘According to everyone at the table, he was naked,’ the employee alleged in her email.

The witness also claimed Box remained in the pool for an ‘extended period on the inflatable air mattress’.

The FWC heard the mining camp did not rule out allowing employees to consume liquor after 10pm but swimming naked was banned. 

Four workers claimed they witnessed Box jump in without clothes but none turned up to give evidence during a FWC determinative conference on April 2.

Only one gave an official statement to the FWC which alleged Box skinny dipped.

Commissioner Alana Matheson sided with Box because Sirrom failed to bring any its witnesses to testify.

‘[The] poor evidentiary case does not support a finding that he was naked in the pool,’ she said.

‘In these circumstances, I am unable to reach a firm conclusion, on the balance of probabilities that the alleged conduct occurred.’

Box, who gave evidence at the April 2 conference, disputed he was naked and instead claimed Sirrom targeted him because of his ‘sexual orientation’. 

Ms Matheson dismissed that claim.

‘The commission does not establish that the applicant was targeted due to sexual orientation,’ she said. 

Box, who commenced employment with Sirrom in November 2024, also claimed another employee told him he had been in the pool in his underwear.

However, Ms Matheson did not find Box a credible witness because he could remember some parts of his late night romp while forgetting other details.

Ms Matheson highlighted Box’s supervisor had declined to provide a written statement because she ‘felt some blame for the incident’ because she arranged the party.

Ms Matheson also queried how the employee who claimed she could see Box lying on an inflatable mattress in the pool but couldn’t tell if he had clothes.

‘It is difficult to understand how [the witness] could have observed the applicant remaining in the pool for an extended period on an inflatable mattress but did not see whether he was naked or not,’ Ms Matheson said.

The commissioner found there was no valid reason for dismissal and ordered Sirrom to pay Box $9,543 in compensation after placing more weight on his claim he woke up wearing board shorts.

‘[Box] indicated that he had not tried to look for work because he thought he would wait and see what happened with his application and that he remained unemployed,’ she said.

‘I consider that this warrants a substantial reduction in the compensation that might otherwise be ordered.

‘The amount of compensation does not include a component for shock, distress or humiliation, or other analogous hurt.’

The Daily Mail attempted to contact Box for comment.