Summary dismissal, Serious Misconduct, Workplace Investigations Summary dismissal, Serious Misconduct, Workplace Investigations – A recent case at the Fair Work Commission (Trialonas v Steric Solutions Pty Ltd) highlighted the need for employers to understand what Summary Dismissal is, how it applies to Serious Misconduct and the importance of thorough professional workplace investigations. In this case a worker was […]

Summary dismissal is it justified?

In matters involving serious misconduct and summary dismissal it is important for employers to understand what constitutes each and when it is appropriate to summarily dismiss. Failure to reach the requisite standard can result in a successful unfair dismissal application.

Ian Nieuwpoort South West Transit Group Pty Ltd – Fair Work Commission Perth 22 September 2017

In a recent matter before the Fair Work Commission the applicant Mr Ian Nieuwpoort was employed as bus driver. The case involved the applicant driving with expired driver’s licence, he became aware licence had expired when requested to produce it for examination.

He advised his supervisor he was in possession of expired licence and would ask wife for renewed licence at home. The applicant left message for wife and then departed depot undertaking driving duties without confirmation that his driver’s licence had been renewed.

The applicant called into meeting two days later and dismissed he claimed respondent South West Transit Group Pty Ltd had already determined would be dismissed summarily prior to meeting and respondent not interested in his explanation

The applicant’s case was that when advised that his driver’s licence appeared to not have been renewed respondent allowed applicant to complete driving duties for day, he was not contacted by respondent asking him to stop driving or return to depot during shift.

He claimed that his actions were neither wilful nor deliberate and that he acted immediately to renew driver’s licence once it was drawn to his attention that it had expired.

The respondent submitted that applicant was terminated based on valid reason and that he was provided with opportunity to respond to allegation of driving on expired driver’s licence.

The applicant submitted that Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) (RT Act) provides an exemption to offence of driving while not authorised ‘because the licence expired’ and grace period of six months to continue driving without committing offence.

At the FWC DP Bull found that applicant’s driver’s licence no longer current until further renewed within six-month period with effect from date of renewal and rejected the argument that the Act provides for exemptions or grace period.

The Commission satisfied valid reason for dismissal in that driving motor vehicle without current driver’s licence an offence and therefore amounted to serious misconduct however it accepted that decision to drive made spur of moment while applicant was in state of shock rather than action taken designed to destroy employment relationship in wilful manner.

The FWC found that the applicant demonstrated remorse for actions and had an unblemished employment record of seven years and age taken into consideration

The Commission found despite finding of valid reason, Commission found actions of applicant did not justify summary dismissal and therefore the dismissal was unfair based on its summary nature. The Commission held compensation should be ordered in the amount of payment of five weeks wages being Mr Nieuwpoort’s entitlement based on his termination of employment with notice.

Some questions arise from this matter;

  1. Why was Mr Nieuwpoort allowed to drive the bus on the day it was discovered that his licence had expired?
  2. Why wasn’t it checked that the licence had been renewed prior to Mr Nieuwpoort taking the bus out?
  3. Why did South West Transit Group summarily dismiss Mr Nieuwpoort two days later. Summary dismissal indicates some sort of urgency is required to prevent injury or harm to the business or it’s employees
  4. Why wasn’t Mr Nieuwpoort unblemished record of service taken into account?

Summary dismissal is it justified – Lesson for employers

  1. Understand what summary dismissal and serious misconduct are and what the thresholds are – have a look at this article for more details – http://awpti.com.au/summary-dismissal-2/
  2. Don’t try and save the 4 weeks pay, it not worth it in the long run.
  3. If your managers and HR professionals are unsure get some training –  http://awpti.com.au/investigation-training/

Full text of the case – https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2017fwc4887.htm

AWPTI – workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/
http://awpti.com.au/training/

 

 

 

Unfair dismissal serious misconduct workplace investigation – When considering dismissing an employee for serious misconduct, employers must bare in mind the following;

  1. Does the alleged behaviour that resulted dismissal reach the threshold of serious misconduct
  2. Have you conducted an investigation – do yo have the evidence to support the decision to terminate?
  3. Does the punishment fit the crime?

More details of another case there the issue of the punishment fitting the crime was considered by the FWC – http://awpti.com.au/punishment-must-fit-crime/

More details about summary dismissal can be found here – http://awpti.com.au/summary-dismissal-2/

Recently at the fair Work Commission, the depot manager at an Australian courier company was unfairly sacked after he was accused of being responsible for the breach of a worldwide embargo on the J.K. Rowling book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the Fair Work Commission has found.

The FWC heard that XL Express Pty Ltd sacked the depot manager for serious misconduct last November when he was told that the delivery of embargoed J.K. Rowling books a day early had damaged the company’s reputation. XL Express blamed the Brisbane depot manager for the embargo breach, a claim he denied.

Describing the delivery of embargoed freight as “the pinnacle of its operations”, the company said a November 17, 2016 embargo on the J.K. Rowling novel was breached on November 16.

Under cross-examination, the company agreed it had not lost its contract with the book distributor and had not been financially penalised for the embargo breach. It claimed a forklift driver removed the embargo consignment from the embargo area and that another staff member removed the consignment note from an embargo file. The depot manager was accused of failing to ensure staff followed set procedures for embargo releases.

The depot manager told the FWC that the error with the sorting and handling of the consignment note happened on November 15 when he was on leave.  He said he was unaware that someone had “accessed his office, gained access to the box where the embargo labels were kept and also retrieved the con-note from the embargo con-notes and had labelled the freight”.

He said no fewer than six people had taken these actions on the day he was absent from the depot.

The commission heard that the depot manager claimed the error that resulted in the embargo breach on November 16 “was not through any fault on his part”.

The depot manager, who had been employed from May 2008 until late November last year, was dismissed on the grounds of serious misconduct after a meeting in which he was also accused of workplace bullying. He said it was the first time the allegations had been put to him. He was also accused of wrongly claiming he had received training in the company’s anti-bullying procedures.

Fair Work Commission deputy president Ingrid Asbury’s judgment said XL Express had no documents and called no evidence to support the bullying allegations.

The depot manager told the commission he was not paid his long service leave entitlements because his job was terminated for misconduct.

In finding the dismissal was unfair, Deputy President Asbury ordered XL Express to pay the sacked employee $48,432 in wages, less tax and $6555 in superannuation contributions.

The commission found that although it was not a valid reason for his dismissal, the depot manager’s responsibility for depot operations “meant that he had a role in the series of events that led to the embargo breach”.

It said the dismissal was harsh because it was disproportionate to the misconduct in relation to the embargo breach.

It is important to consider the decision in Rode v Burwood Mitsubishi where is was held a valid reason must be “defensible or justifiable on objective analysis of relevant facts”.

 

Summary dismissal – Do you have the grounds

In light of the  XL Express Pty Ltd decision at the Fair Work Commission, I think it’s time to review Summary Dismissal. (More about XL Express here – http://awpti.com.au/unfair-dismissal-serious-misconduct-workplace-investigation/

Summary dismissal is dismissal without notice. It does not require advance notice to the employee and wages are only paid to the time of dismissal. An employer has a legal right to summarily dismiss an employee without notice for serious misconduct or other conduct which justifies such dismissal.

Employers should always think very carefully and thoroughly consider the options before making a decision to immediately or “summarily” dismiss an employee. For summary dismissal to be lawful there must have been a breach by the employee of either an express or implied term of the contract of employment that is serious enough to necessitate an employer to undertake an action of summary dismissal.

I recommend before summary dismissal action is taken employers do the following:

  • Investigate the matter carefully to ensure that you have enough information and evidence upon which to make your decision. If the presence of the subject employee in the workplace causes concern consider suspending them until the conclusion of the investigation.
  • Review the employee’s record. Does this person have a long history with the company? Is this person a first or repeat offender? These are matters that could be taken into account.

Summary dismissal of a long standing employee with a good or unblemished record can be problematic.
Your options should be carefully considered

  • Review your options. Would dismissal with notice be a better option? What are other options – demotion, counselling or training?
  • Don’t allow the fact that you may save some money by summarily dismissing an employee to affect your judgement. This course of action could be more costly in the long run.
  • Resist the temptation to ‘make an example’ of instances of employee negligence with summary dismissal. It is always best to ensure that disciplinary action is fair and thorough and that the outcome is proportionate to the conduct that has occurred.

Here are some cases that highlight differing views of summary dismissal:

In Bruce v AWB Ltd [2000] FCA, the Federal Court of Australia stated that mere misconduct is not considered as sufficient grounds to warrant immediate dismissal. For a summary dismissal to be lawful the employee’s conduct must be judged serious enough that summary dismissal is the only option.

In Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64, Kirby J stated that it is “only in exceptional circumstances” that an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee summarily. His Honour went on to state that generally, acts of dishonesty of similar conduct that destroys the mutual trust between the employer and employee fall within the class of conduct which would allow a lawful summary dismissal.

In Smith v Aussie Waste Management Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 1044 (Smith), the FWC ruled that swearing at a managing director during a heated phone call was not sufficient cause for summary dismissal. The FWC ruled that the conduct was not ‘sufficiently insubordinate’ for him to be dismissed because the conversation was not overheard by other employees, meaning it had not undermined the managing director’s authority in the workplace.

On the other hand:

In John Pinawin t/a RoseVi Hair Face.Body v Edwin Domingo [2012] FWAFB 1359 the Full Bench accepted that the summary dismissal of a hairdresser whose work performance was adversely affected by his drug use was fair, but warned the same conclusion would not necessarily be reached in all cases of out-of-hours misconduct – an issue on which the Full Bench made some interesting observations that pertain to all employers.

In Lloyd & Co Pty Ltd v Shuttle ([2016] FWCFB 144) the employee had sent a series of emails to other staff members that were highly critical and disparaging of the managing director.

The Commission ruled that the managing director’s feelings of betrayal as a result of the employee’s personal hostility and disloyalty were reasonably held. The managing director had direct evidence of disloyalty in the form of the emails

As you can see summary dismissal is not cut and dry, I recommend careful and expert investigation of misconduct incidents that could result in summary dismissal.

The peace of mind of getting it right outweighs the cost of an expert investigation.

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from a suitably qualified and experienced workplace investigator.

AWPTI – workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/
http://awpti.com.au/training/

Unfair dismissal flawed investigation

Unfair dismissal flawed investigation – Workplace investigations may be necessary part of business but are often complex and difficult to conduct, especially for the untrained and inexperienced.

A question that is generally raised after a complaint has been lodged is whether to conduct the investigation internally or to obtain external investigation assistance.

Before relying on the findings of an investigation especially when terminating an employee, employers must consider whether the investigation itself and its findings are sound and can be supported by the facts.

In the case of Jennifer Walker v Salvation Army (NSW) [2017] FWC 32 the internal investigation was found flawed due to reliance on false assumptions.

Link to case: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FWC/2017/32.html

In this unfair dismissal case at the Fair Work Commission, the applicant Ms Walker was the manager of the Salvation Army’s store in Lidcombe, Sydney. She had been an employee of the Salvation Army for 11 years and during that time had an unblemished employee record.

In July 2016, Ms Walker served a customer who wished to purchase items of furniture. Ms Walker did not enter a sale and provided the customer with a handwritten document indicating she had set aside certain items.

The customer arrived later in the week to pick up the furniture. The customer claimed he had paid $200 in full for the furniture, however, there was no record of sale. The Salvation Army subsequently investigated the issue. The investigation consisted of a review of the CCTV footage and discussions with Ms Walker and the customer.

The Salvation Army believed the customer’s account and that the CCTV showed Ms Walker had received $200 cash from a customer as payment for furniture he was purchasing.

The CCTV footage showed that while dealing with the customer, Ms Walker had at least $50 in her hand. Ms Walker denied receiving any money from the customer. The Salvation Army terminated her employment for serious misconduct (theft).

In considering the case, Senior Deputy President Hamberger noted that the more serious the alleged conduct the higher the standard of reasonable satisfaction is needed to be applied when determining whether the conduct occurred.

SDP Hamberger found that the evidence demonstrated that Ms Walker was holding a $50 note in her hand, but it did not establish that she had received that money from the customer. SDP Hamberger concluded the customer had not paid Ms Walker for the furniture and as a result held that Ms Walker had not engaged in serious misconduct and that her termination was unfair

SDP Hamberger was surprised at the lack of rigour in the internal investigation and that the Salvation Army so readily accepted the customer’s claims that he had paid ahead of the account of Ms Walker.

In finding that the dismissal was unfair, SDP Hamberger considered the criteria in section 392 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and awarded the Store Manager the maximum available compensation of twenty six weeks’ pay equating to $22,404.50.

Lessons for employers

When conducting a workplace disciplinary investigation, employers should undertake the following:

  • Ensure that the employee is afforded procedural fairness especially the right to be heard
  • Ensure that the employee is provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations. This involves providing the employee with sufficient details of the alleged conduct in writing.
  • In the case of CCTV evidence, it is recommended that employers, ensure that the employee are permitted to view the footage prior to providing a response.
  • Genuinely consider different or alternative explanations for the alleged conduct, and ensure all available evidence is gathers from witnesses and duly considered.
  • Consider any mitigating circumstances prior to making a determination in regard to disciplinary action such the length of service or employment record and past behaviour of the employee.
  • Ensure impartiality and avoid making assumptions of guilt prior to the completion of a fair and thorough investigation;
  • Provide the employee with the opportunity to have a support person present, including providing the employee with sufficient opportunity to find an appropriate support person; and
  • When in doubt, consider other opinions before terminating.

This decision in this case demonstrates the disadvantages of undertaking an internal investigation which was not thorough and made assumptions (that is, the customer’s account was truthful), rather than taking a more open minded approach to all asserted facts.

If in doubt call an expert, getting a workplace investigation wrong can be costly both in terms of money and reputation.

AWPTI – workplace investigations Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Workplace investigations misconduct, bullying, harassment & sexual harassment investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 02 9674 4279 or phil@awpti.com.au

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.

 

Social media case

Social media case – Recently at the Fair Work Commission in the case of Renton v Bendigo Health Care Group [2016] FWC 9089, it was highlighted that employers need to consider the appropriateness of penalties and having policies in place when considering a decision to terminate employees for misconduct and is a reminder about the use and abuse of social media in the workplace

Link to case – https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2016fwc9089.htm

In the Renton case, an employee of Bendigo Health Care Group was found to have been unfairly dismissed despite ‘tagging’ two of his colleagues in an offensive and sexually explicit video post on Facebook and on the same day had also left blobs of sorbolene cream and tissues on the desk of a colleague tagged in the video.

That colleague complained about the two incidents and the employer dismissed the employee for serious misconduct.

Commissioner Bissett found that the employee had:

  • negatively affected the health and safety of colleagues
  • engaged in conduct that had the potential to damage the employer’s reputation
  • exposed his colleagues to humiliation and ridicule at work.

The Commissioner stated,

“Whilst Mr Renton is apologetic, he has displayed a lack of insight into the effect of his post on his colleagues – even at the hearing of his application he failed to appreciate that it caused real offence. To this extent, I am not sure the basis of his apologies. He compounded his Facebook misdeed by placing blobs of sorbolene cream on Mr Christie’s desk. That act was boorish.

Having said this, however, I consider, on fine balance, that the decision to terminate Mr Renton’s employment was harsh in that it was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.”

Mr Renton has no history of misconduct at work. Whilst it is apparent he and Mr Christie have exchanged ‘jokes’ in the past, not dissimilar to the sorbolene incident, this has gone unremarked by either of them, their colleagues or management (if it was aware of these ‘jokes’). Further, the Facebook posting and its naming of work colleagues and ‘work’ is a one-off incident. Mr Renton had not drawn such connections in the past. Whilst Mr Renton’s insight into the incident may be questioned it can only be hoped he has learnt from his conduct. Further, there was no suggestion that the incident had any adverse effect on any other aspect of Mr Renton’s work.

Commissioner Bissett held that the behaviour was a one-off nature and that there had been a lack of previous misconduct. Having found the dismissal of the employee to be harsh and as a result Mr Renton was unfairly dismissed.

Commissioner Bissett considered that the incident was an isolated one and his employment history was otherwise spotless.

Getting termination right.

This decision suggests that employers must consider a number of issues when deciding to terminate an employee such as:

  1. The nature of the incident
  2. Past behaviours and employment history, including length of service
  3. If policies are in place and did the behaviour breach the policy
  4. Are options other than termination more appropriate.
  5. Does the punishment fit the crime, as matter also addressed in Dawson v Qantas Airways Limited (2016) FWC 8249 – http://awpti.com.au/fwc-unfair-dismissal/

It is recommended that employers have in place

  1. A clearly written social media policy
  2. Training that clearly outlines the contents of the policy so that employees understand the behavioural expectations of the employer
  3. Investigate matters of this nature thoroughly and impartially before making final decisions.

AWPTI – workplace investigations Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Workplace investigations misconduct, bullying, harassment & sexual harassment investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 02 9674 4279 or phil@awpti.com.au

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigator

Recently at the Fair Work Commission – dismissal unfair

dismissal unfairRecently and the Fair Work Commission – dismissal unfair but no reinstatement or compensation – [2016] FWC 7982

The applicant Mr Nash Wong had worked for the employer for nine years’,  at the time of the dismissal he was a delivery driver.

It was alleged that applicant was involved in joint criminal enterprise in which applicant, along with other employees, stole products from respondent.

The employer became aware of alleged theft February 2016 however Mr Wong was not dismissal until May 2016

Mr Wong contended that there was no valid reason for dismissal and argued that  the dismissal related to complaints regarding entitlements and health and safety concerns, he further contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove alleged misconduct.

The employer contended that the belief of theft was established on reasonable grounds and therefore constituted a valid reason.

Commissioner Cambridge concluded on balance of probabilities, the applicant was involved in joint criminal enterprise – Briginshaw applied and found that there was a valid reason for dismissal, however it was highlighted that it was a procedural error for  the respondent to allow the applicant to continue employment between February and May 2016 despite knowledge of misconduct for which it summarily dismissed the applicant.

Commissioner Cambridge concluded that respondent was unable to summarily dismiss the applicant in those circumstances and was required to dismiss with notice [McCasker v Darling Downs], the dismissal was found to be unjust with reinstatement inappropriate but concluded that compensation was appropriate however when the Commissioner applied Sprigg and s.392 of Fair Work Act it was concluded that the applicant’s employment would have been likely to have been terminated within very short period, there was minimal efforts to mitigate loss and nature and severity of misconduct reduced compensation to zero – no order for compensation issued.

Lesson for employers:

  • In the case of suspected serious misconduct a thorough investigation is often required to establish all the facts – we can help http://awpti.com.au/backup/investigations/
  • Summary dismissal (often considered to be immediate dismissal) following serious misconduct usually means that perpetrator needs to be out of the business immediately, allowing them to stay for 3 months tends to negate the need to summary dismissal.
  • In this case there was no order for compensation, however the cost of an investigation would likely have been less than the time, cost and stress of defending this matter at the FWC

If you have an issue of misconduct in your workplace and are not sure what to do, contact Australian Workplace Training & Investigation for advice and investigation services – www.awpti.com.au

AWPTI – workplace investigations Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Workplace investigations misconduct, bullying, harassment & sexual harassment investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

You can contact AWPTI on 02 9674 4279 or enquiries@awpti.com.au

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory. It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.

 


Dismissing employees – legitimate reasons but beware you must adhere to the process and afford procedural fairness.

Dismissing employees can be stressful, difficult and complex process. It is a decision that carries legal risks and can take a significant amount of time and resources.

When dismissing employees who earn less than the defined high income threshold currently $138,900 from 1 July 2016 (see http://www.afei.org.au/node/109027 or who are covered by an award or enterprise agreement, care needs to be taken to minimise the risk of an unfair dismissal claim in the Fair Work a state commission

 

To protect your business when dismissing employees in the case of misconduct you must;

  • Ensure that you have a valid reason to terminate an employee.
  • Act in a fair and reasonable manner during the process.
  • Ensure that you have provided the employee procedural fairness.
  • Consider the employees records and circumstances
  • Follow any applicable rules regarding dismissal, notice of termination, and final pay, including accrued outstanding leave.

 

With a legitimate reason, a proper procedure, and quality advice, you can feel secure in terminating an employee with minimised risk.

Below are four valid reasons for dismissing an employee.

1. MISCONDUCT

Misconduct can refer to a range of behaviour including breaching company policy and inappropriate behaviour that leads to Dismissing employees.

Serious misconduct includes theft, fraud, assault, other unlawful activity and any wilful or deliberate conduct that is fundamentally inconsistent with continuation of the employment, and conduct that causes and serious and imminent risk to health and safety or the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business.

Your company policies, procedure or Code of Conduct should be clearly set out so you have grounds to take action. If you do not have these I strongly advise that you seek assistance and HR support, AWPTI can assist – http://awpti.com.au/backup/hr-support/

You must have evidence that misconduct occurred and that efforts were made to formally warn the employee about their misconduct. You don’t need to give any warnings in the case of serious misconduct before you can terminate, but you do need evidence and procedural fairness.

It is recommended that if termination is a likely outcome a thorough investigation is carried out to ensure you have the evidence and that procedural fairness (meaning giving the employee the opportunity to respond to allegations about their conduct) is afforded. AWPTI can assist with investigation services http://awpti.com.au/backup/investigations/

In cases of serious misconduct, employers do not have to provide any notice of termination. However, as this is a drastic measure, you need to be sure you have a sound basis and valid reason, having afforded procedural fairness. If you are unsure the employee may be suspended while and investigation takes place

2. INCAPACITY

Capacity relates to an employee’s ability to carry out the requirements of the job. In order to use incapacity as a legitimate reason to terminate an employee, you need to identify the core duties of the job position and assess the employee’s ability to perform them. In doing so, you must ensure that you are not unlawfully discriminating against the employee by reason of illness or some other incapacity.

Once again, you need evidence that a lack of capacity exists and that reasonable measures were taken to find a solution or provide alternative duties. This is especially important in the case of disability or medical incapacity.

It is very important that you have clearly written position description that clarify that nature of the position and the responsibilities of the employee. If you do not have clear and current position description AWPTI can assist – http://awpti.com.au/backup/hr-support/

3.POOR PERFORMANCE

Managing poor performance can be a risky process. A structured and well-prepared performance management plan or improvement procedure can protect you from ending up on the receiving end of a bullying or unfair dismissal claim.

Identify the performance problem and formally discuss it with the employee. You need to give concrete examples of poor performance rather than general comments about their productivity. Give them the opportunity to respond, advise them on how they can improve their performance and give them time to do so. Most importantly, you need to document the process.

Ensure that you can demonstrate a well-established performance management process in case a claim is made against you. Check contracts, industrial agreements, policies and procedures to ensure you are complying with any relevant rules or procedures. Verify your facts, ensure you have evidence and again, above all, document everything. http://awpti.com.au/backup/hr-support/

4. GENUINE REDUNDANCY

Redundancy is a valid reason for termination. You need to show that the employee’s position is no longer required to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of your business.

Protect your business from an unfair dismissal claim by making sure you follow any consultation requirements outlined in an applicable award or registered agreement.

You should also have explored all reasonable opportunity to redeploy the employee in another position. It is best practice to consult employees about redundancy and redeployment regardless of the right to be consulted under an award or enterprise agreement. Affording empathy to employees who are adversely affected by redundancies goes a long way in minimising the risk of claims.

AWPTI With all areas of workplace investigations, training and HR support that are essential when dismissing employees.

AWPTI – workplace investigations Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Workplace investigations misconduct, bullying, harassment & sexual harassment investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

www.awpti.com.au

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 0409 078 322 or phil@awpti.com.au

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.

HR Support – Does your business have up to date and compliant workplace polices in place?

HR Support – In the recent case of Shane Clayton v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd [2016] Fair Work Commission found that an employee who consumed cannabis before attending work was not unfairly dismissed for breach of the employer’s ‘zero tolerance’ drug and alcohol policy.

The applicant, Mr Clayton was employed by Coles at a distribution centre his job required him to operate manual handling equipment. Coles classed the distribution centre, as a high risk environment, had a ‘zero tolerance’ drug and alcohol policy.

in January 2016, Mr Clayton was involved in a forklift incident, it was accepted that the incident was not his fault; however Mr Clayton underwent an oral fluid drug test that returned a positive result for cannabis. Further testing confirmed the on-site test result.

On 1 February 2016, Coles conducted a disciplinary meeting and provided Mr Clayton with the opportunity to show cause as to why his employment should not be terminated. After considering Mr Clayton’s response, Coles terminated his employment summarily without notice or payment in lieu.

Mr Clayton argued that the dismissal was unfair because;

  1. He was advised during the induction training that he needed to ensure that he did not smoke marijuana within 3 to 6 hours of the commencement of his shift and he had complied with this.
  2. He reasonably believed that he complied with Coles’ drug and alcohol policy by leaving a considerably longer gap between his consumption of cannabis and his attendance at work.
  3. His consumption of cannabis was linked to workplace stress and was part of his strategy to manage that alleged stress.

 

The Commission found that Mr Clayton’s dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal because:

  1. There were valid grounds for Mr Clayton’s dismissal. The Commission concluded that it was reasonable for Coles to have a zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy that should be consistently applied because of:
  2. The nature of the workplace: a busy environment with various vehicles and machinery being operated;
  3. the work health and safety risks associated with employees working under the influence of drugs in this type of environment; and
  4. the lack of an objective test for determining Mr Clayton’s impairment.
  5. Mr Clayton was notified of the reason for his dismissal.
  6. Mr Clayton was afforded a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations. It noted that the meeting on 1 February 2016 was adjourned to allow Mr Clayton time to consider the allegations and provide a response.
  7. Mr Clayton was accompanied by a support person in discussions concerning the matters leading to his dismissal.

The Commission held that while the use of cannabis for pain relief may be considered a mitigating factor, that factor needed to be weighed up in circumstances where Coles had a confidential scheme and policy that encouraged self-reporting problems without sanctions. The Commission also found that the employee used cannabis for recreational purposes.

While the Commission also acknowledged that there were potential dangers for an employer in providing information about detection periods as this may detract from the zero tolerance message, any information provided to Mr Clayton by Coles did not provide a mitigating factor because:

  1. The window of detection was given as an indicative guide only and could not reasonably be expected to represent a guaranteed safe or reliable withholding period given the context in which it was provided.
  2. The responsibility upon an employee not to attend work with any detectable drugs in their system was clear and understood.
  3. Mr Clayton was advised that if in doubt, he should not attend for work.

The Commission found that Mr Clayton had consumed cannabis on the morning before his shift, and could not be confident that his system would be clear of the drug when he attended work. He was therefore, at best, recklessly indifferent to his potential to breach the zero tolerance policy, and any confidence to the contrary could not be soundly based.

While the Commission held that the lack of notice or payment in lieu of notice would usually be a factor strongly supporting a finding that the dismissal was unfair, this was not decisive here. This was because Mr Clayton had misled Coles about the timing of his consumption of cannabis and could not have legitimately relied upon the indicative window of detection.

Lessons to be learned for employers

  • This case highlights the importance of having a comprehensive drug and alcohol policy that is consistently applied.
  • It is advisable to provide employees with training that clearly outlines their responsibilities in relation to workplace expectations and behaviours
  • Get good HR Support

If you organisation does not have up to date and complaint workplace polices in place and training for your employees, please contact AWPTI and allow us to assist you with HR Support – http://awpti.com.au/hr-support/

AWPTI – workplace investigations Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide
Workplace investigations misconduct, bullying, harassment & sexual harassment investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

The author Phil O’Brien is a highly experienced and skilled workplace investigator and trainer who can take the stress out of conducting workplace investigations into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct.

You can contact me on 0409 078 322 or phil@awpti.com.au for HR Support

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory. It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from suitability qualified and experienced workplace investigators.

 

Question – summary dismissal do you have the grounds

Summary dismissal is dismissal without notice. It does not require advance notice to the employee and wages are only paid to the time of dismissal. An employer has a legal right to summarily dismiss an employee without notice for serious misconduct or other conduct which justifies such dismissal.

Employers should always think very carefully and thoroughly consider the options before making a decision to immediately or “summarily” dismiss an employee. For summary dismissal to be lawful there must have been a breach by the employee of either an express or implied term of the contract of employment that is serious enough to necessitate an employer to undertake an action of summary dismissal.

 

I recommend before summary dismissal action is taken employers do the following:

  • Investigate the matter carefully to ensure that you have enough information and evidence upon which to make your decision. If the presence of the subject employee in the workplace causes concern consider suspending them until the conclusion of the investigation.
  • Review the employee’s record. Does this person have a long history with the company? Is this person a first or repeat offender? These are matters that could be taken into account.

Summary dismissal of a long standing employee with a good or unblemished record can be problematic.
Your options should be carefully considered

  • Review your options. Would dismissal with notice be a better option? What are other options – demotion, counselling or training?
  • Don’t allow the fact that you may save some money by summarily dismissing an employee to affect your judgement. This course of action could be more costly in the long run.
  • Resist the temptation to ‘make an example’ of instances of employee negligence with summary dismissal. It is always best to ensure that disciplinary action is fair and thorough and that the outcome is proportionate to the conduct that has occurred.

 

Here are some cases that highlight differing views of summary dismissal:

In Bruce v AWB Ltd [2000] FCA, the Federal Court of Australia stated that mere misconduct is not considered as sufficient grounds to warrant immediate dismissal. For a summary dismissal to be lawful the employee’s conduct must be judged serious enough that summary dismissal is the only option.

In Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64, Kirby J stated that it is “only in exceptional circumstances” that an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee summarily. His Honour went on to state that generally, acts of dishonesty of similar conduct that destroys the mutual trust between the employer and employee fall within the class of conduct which would allow a lawful summary dismissal.

In Smith v Aussie Waste Management Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 1044 (Smith), the FWC ruled that swearing at a managing director during a heated phone call was not sufficient cause for summary dismissal. The FWC ruled that the conduct was not ‘sufficiently insubordinate’ for him to be dismissed because the conversation was not overheard by other employees, meaning it had not undermined the managing director’s authority in the workplace.

 

On the other hand:

In John Pinawin t/a RoseVi Hair Face.Body v Edwin Domingo [2012] FWAFB 1359 the Full Bench accepted that the summary dismissal of a hairdresser whose work performance was adversely affected by his drug use was fair, but warned the same conclusion would not necessarily be reached in all cases of out-of-hours misconduct – an issue on which the Full Bench made some interesting observations that pertain to all employers.

In Lloyd & Co Pty Ltd v Shuttle ([2016] FWCFB 144) the employee had sent a series of emails to other staff members that were highly critical and disparaging of the managing director.

The Commission ruled that the managing director’s feelings of betrayal as a result of the employee’s personal hostility and disloyalty were reasonably held. The managing director had direct evidence of disloyalty in the form of the emails

As you can see summary dismissal is not cut and dry, I recommend careful and expert investigation of misconduct incidents that could result in summary dismissal.

The peace of mind of getting it right outweighs the cost of an expert investigation.

This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory.  It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from a suitably qualified and experienced workplace investigator