Skip to main content

Workplace Investigation Procedural Fairness

Workplace Investigation Procedural Fairness – Decisions at the Fair Work Commission where a lack of procedural fairness has proved is costly once again

Two cases before the Fair Work Commission once again highlight that organisations are still having dismissal found as unfair due to a failure to afford an employee procedural fairness
In Schneider v Eliana Construction and Developing Group P/L [2016] FWC 5748  23 August 2016, the applicant Mr Schneider was employed as finance manager; he was dismissed for unsatisfactory conduct. The respondent claimed actions of applicant in submitting BASS statements without Director’s approval caused significant harm to company.
The Commission found that there was no valid reason for dismissal, that the applicant was not put on notice that employment at risk concerning either conduct or performance, he received no written or verbal warnings made and that there was an absence of procedural fairness. It was held that the dismissal unfair and compensation of $16,816 was ordered.
In Moore v Specialist Diagnostic Services P/L t/a Dorevitch Pathology [2016] FWC 5910 23 August 2016, the applicant Ms Moore was employed from July 2003 until April 2016 as pathology collector and promoted to collections co-ordinator. According to a termination letter she was dismissed for failing to follow reasonable directions
The commission found that the applicant not given clear and unambiguous opportunity to respond to reasons for dismissal and that the respondent’s decision maker not given all information to make decision.
In finding that there was no valid reason for dismissal, that the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable and that the applicant was unfairly dismissed the Commission found there was lack of procedural fairness and uncertainty regarding respondent’s reasons for dismissal compensation of $27,900 was ordered.
The lesson for employers - If termination is being contemplated as an option, employers should consider an investigation to establish the full facts of the matter and provide the employee with the opportunity to respond in a timely manner.
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.
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
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

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

Stop-bullying application rejected

An employee who claimed his new team leader micromanaged and bullied him has had his stop-bullying application rejected, after the Fair Work Commission found her behaviour "abrupt" but not repeated or unreasonable. The Bunnings Warehouse employee claimed that in May 2016 the new team leader asked him about his face – the left side of his face "droops" and he is unable to move his left arm – which he found "deeply disrespectful and hurtful". A few weeks later, the team leader on two occasions confronted him and questioned why he was in different sections of the store, he told the Commission, noting he believed he was being singled out and treated differently from colleagues. He contacted the store manager to discuss the issue but was told she was too busy to speak with him, and he subsequently took two days off because of work-related stress. The employee claimed that when he returned to work, the employer suspended him but didn't tell him wh...
Post a Comment
Read more