Skip to main content

False Allegations Valid Reason for Dismissal

Mohammed Ayub made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy (in the case of Ayub v NSW Trains [2017] FWC 1106) in respect of the termination of his employment by NSW Trains. Mr Ayub was employed as a Customer Service Team Leader from May 1982 until his dismissal in January 2016. Mr Ayub’s employment history was quite colourful – he had received a number of sanctions for breaches of the NSW Trains Code of Conduct including fines, suspensions and final warnings.
Between December 2014 and May 2015, Mr Ayub was involved in two incidents. The first incident occurred in December 2014 when Mr Ayub elected to absent himself from work without approval or authorization. Following this incident, Mr Ayub was issued with a final warning. The second incident occurred in 19 May 2015, when Mr Ayub allegedly abused Mr Singh, a Platform Manager, over the phone. It is alleged that Mr Ayub made a number of comments to the Platform Manager including “you should cut your hair and throw your turban away” and “Punjabis are very good people but you are disgusting.” 
Mr Ayub was suspended from work while an investigation was conducted into this incident. The Disciplinary Review Panel determined that Mr Ayub’s conduct had breached a number of his obligations under the Code of Conduct, Transport Prevention and Management of Bullying and Harassment Policy, and Transport Discrimination Free Workplace Policy. The DRP recommended that Mr Ayub be suspended for two weeks without pay and required to attend counseling in Diversity and Inclusion Awareness. These incidents were not considered in detail by the FWC, as the FWC considered that these incidents were not ultimately the reasons NSW Trains relied upon to terminate Mr Ayub’s employment.
Between May 2015 and July 2015, Mr Ayub also made a number of allegations against his co-workers. These allegations ranged from co-workers have underworld associations, to corruption and allegations of bullying and harassment. Despite numerous requests, Mr Ayub did not provide information to substantiate these allegations. Following an investigation into false allegations, Mr Ayub was dismissed.
The FWC held that the false allegations made by Mr Ayub provided NSW Trains with a valid reason to terminate his employment. The FWC noted that “at no time either before the Commission proceedings, or during them, did Mr Ayub proffer the least shred of evidence” to support these allegations. Instead, Mr Ayub’s “attitude seemed to be that if someone made an allegation against him he was entitled to respond with his own allegations – however baseless.” The FWC stated, “no employer should be expected to tolerate this behaviour.” The FWC found that Mr Ayub’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Mr Ayub’s application was dismissed.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work. Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a learning and development manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability. The company came out swinging against the claims early on,   posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims  and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case. The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent decisions at the Fair Work Commission

Knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk Unfair dismissal applications are all too common and employers regularly find themselves in hot water when they are on the receiving end of one. Whilst the outcome of every unfair dismissal case tends to turn on its own individual merits, opportunities to learn and refresh one’s knowledge consistently arise – and knowledge is power when it comes to managing claims risk. To assist you in managing your unfair dismissal claims risk, this article set out some important lessons and reminders compiled from a number of recent unfair dismissal decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. If an employee has “gotten away” with certain conduct in the past, it can be difficult to later justify their dismissal for such conduct. In West v Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 2346, the applicant employee allowed a casual labour hire worker to operate a crane without adequate supervision. This was despite the fact that the labour hire wo...
Post a Comment
Read more
The serious threat SMEs are ignoring: One in two small businesses don’t have a policy for bullying claims One in two small businesses do not know how they would respond if bullying allegations were raised by their staff, according to new research, leaving them open to significant costs and productivity issues. But workplace experts say these concerns can be prevented with forward planning A survey of 400 businesses from employment relations advisory Employsure found one in two Australian small businesses don’t have a “defined action plan” for when bullying is raised at work, with many unaware that they could face costs related to dispute resolution or even penalties relating to bullying cases in some states. The research, which surveyed businesses with up to 15 employees, found those businesses with between two and four employees were the most likely to be unaware of best practice processes for dealing with bullying claims, with only 40% of businesses saying they know the st...
Post a Comment
Read more