Skip to main content

Employer allowed to continue recruitment process despite bullying claim

The FWC has refused to take the "extraordinary step" of temporarily halting an employer's recruitment process while it determines whether an unsuccessful candidate was "bullied".

The employee, a senior research fellow at the University of Queensland, alleged the institution bullied him when it overlooked him for a new role and didn't extend his existing employment contract. He blamed his failure to secure the position on an anonymous complaint about his research, which led to a misconduct investigation.
The employee made a stop-bullying application, arguing that at least two of the four people on the interview panel knew about the inquiry into his alleged research misconduct, and that his interview was unfair because he was not given the opportunity to discuss his research.
While his claim proceeds, the employee sought an interim order restraining the employer from appointing a new candidate to the role he wanted.
The employer argued the employee wouldn't be able to prove bullying occurred, and that its decision was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable manner – the employee was one of two shortlisted candidates, and the other candidate out-performed him.
Commissioner Jennifer Hunt found prohibiting the employer from offering employment to another candidate until the bullying application was determined would be an "extraordinary step" and result in more than just a "mere inconvenience".
She rejected the employee's claim that his candidature for the role was prejudiced because members of the selection committee were privy to the misconduct investigation and this might have swayed their views.
As disappointing as it was for the employee to learn he was unsuccessful, an interim order preventing the employer from filling the role "would result in a severe and unnecessary restriction on the University without affecting [the employee's] rights relevant to the substantive application", she said.
Subramanian [2017] FWC 3492 (7 July 2017)

Originally published at HR Daily
https://www.hrdaily.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&nav=13&selkey=4679
Labels:
Location: Sydney NSW, Australia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...
Post a Comment
Read more

Workplace Investigation biased process

The presence of bias be it actual or perceived during an investigation can derail the investigation and undermine any findings and recommendations. Complaint of bias are often raised relating to two areas, the investigation process itself or the investigation interviews. This article will examine the process, part two will examine bias during interviews. Workplace investigations are defined as  "an unbiased gathering of evidence"  and to ensure that that a complaint of bias is not raised or substantiated it is important to follow these rules; Approach the investigation with an open mind. Do no make any judgements on the parties Do not make any judgements on the truthfulness of any of the parties versions of events until all the evidence has been gathered. Gather all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the complaint Do not form a theory and then seek evidence to support your theory only Do not make early determinations If you feel that you ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal The Fair Work Commission (in the case of  Sekirski v Scope (Vic) Ltd [2017] FWC 1200 ) has found that an employee who assaulted a co-worker by striking her in the face was validly dismissed.  Stif Sekirski commenced employment as a Disability Support Worker with Scope (Vic) Ltd in November 2014.  Mr Sekirski’s employment was terminated on 2 September 2016 on grounds of serious misconduct. It was alleged that Mr Sekirski punched a co-worker in the face, then called her a bit** and threw a chair in her direction.  The FWC was satisfied that this conduct had occurred, and held that this conduct provided Scope with a valid reason to terminate Mr Sekirski’s employment. It is important that when confronted with matters involving violence in the workplace employers ensure that they conduct a timely and thorough investigation.   We recommend that even if summary dismissal is a likely outcome you should s...
1 comment
Read more