What Employers Need To Know about Unfair Dismissal Claims

What Employers Need To Know about Unfair Dismissal Claims

Private Law

In 2020, unfair dismissal claims shot up by almost 70% during the coronavirus crisis with the Fair Work Commission dealing with an “unprecedented” caseload.

Recently, the NSW District Court awarded a former Aussie Toyota employee and Dad a damages award of $276,000 on the basis that the company could not prove he had engaged in serious misconduct and had unlawfully terminated him only one day before he was to due to receive a massive redundancy package.

So what if you need to dismiss an employee and want to minimise the risk of those consequences? 

In a challenging economic climate, it can be overwhelming as an employer to consider terminating an employee when you may face the complexities of an unfair dismissal application.

Here’s the lowdown for employers on unfair dismissal claims:

Who can make an unfair dismissal claim?

In order to bring an unfair dismissal claim in Australia, a dismissed employee must have been employed for a minimum period of time, which period depends on whether the employer is considered to be a small business employer.

A small business employer is defined by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) as an employer that employs fewer than 15 employees at that time.  

The Fair Work Act says that when calculating the number of employees at the time of an employee’s dismissal, all employees are to be counted including employees of associated entities (as defined under section 50AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)), the employee being dismissed, and any other employee(s) being dismissed at the same time.

You don’t count casual employees unless at the time of the relevant employee’s dismissal, the casual employee(s) are working on a regular and systematic basis.

If the employer is a small business employer, the employee needs to have been working for the employer for at least 12 months before they are eligible to make a claim under the legislation.

If you’re not a small business employer, the employee needs to have worked for your business for a minimum period of 6 months before becoming eligible to bring an unfair dismissal claim. 

If there’s been a change of business ownership, service with the first employer may count as service with the second employer when calculating the minimum employment period.

The employee must also be either covered by a Modern Award or an enterprise agreement, or if not, have an income less than the high-income threshold (see s 382 and 332 of the Fair Work Act).  

The high income threshold is currently $153,600 however this figure is adjusted annually on 1 July. For a dismissal which took effect on or before 30 June 2020, the high income threshold was $148,700.

If an employee does not meet the above eligibility requirements, they cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act however they may have a potential claim under the ‘general protections’ (otherwise known as ‘adverse action’) provisions of the Fair Work Act

What other type of claim can an employee bring?

Employees may also have other options available than just an unfair dismissal claim, some of which may entitle them to a lot more compensation because, unlike unfair dismissal claims (where you can only claim up to 6 months of your wages as compensation), the compensation available in relation to other common law claims may be ‘uncapped’ or subject to a higher jurisdictional amount. These include:  

  • Breach of Contract Claim;
  • Adverse Action Claim (General Protections Claim);
  • Discrimination Claim; or
  • Unlawful Termination or Wrongful Dismissal Claim.

What constitutes an unfair dismissal?

Under s 385 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA), a person has been unfairly dismissed if the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The Commission must also be satisfied that the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy. If the employee worked for a small business employer and they failed to comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, this can also be grounds for dismissal under the Act.

Criteria for unfair dismissal

In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Fair Work Commission must take into account the following (s 387 of the Fair Work Act):

  • whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees)
  • whether the person was notified of that reason
  • whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person
  • any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal
  • if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal
  • the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal
  • the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal, and
  • any other matters that the Commission considers relevant.

What should an employer do if it receives a Fair Work Commission claim?

An employee has 21 days to file an unfair dismissal claim before the Commission, from the date the dismissal took effect. Once you receive a claim form, before filing a response to the claim, the first thing you should do as an employer is seek legal advice. 

You may be able to lodge an objection to the matter being dealt with by the Fair Work Commission, such as the claim being lodged outside of the requisite 21-day time frame. You could argue that the employee is not eligible to make a claim for unfair dismissal, or that the claim is vexatious, frivolous or has no prospects of success.

An employer is otherwise required to file a response after which time the matter proceeds to a conciliation conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator. This gives both parties a chance to state their case and try and resolve the dispute. 

Fair Work Commission stats show that approximately 80% cases are resolved before ever getting in front of a Commissioner, being either “resolved informally by agreement of the parties” or because the applicant dropped the claim.

If a claim is not resolved on or before the Commission conciliation conference, upon request, the Fair Work Commission has the authority to conduct a hearing and make a determination in the matter after hearing the evidence of both parties.

If a resolution cannot be achieved, the employee will receive a certificate from the Fair Work Commission stating that the parties have attempted conciliation and the employee will then have access to the Fair Work Commission, the Federal Court of Australia or Federal Circuit Court of Australia to seek a determination in the matter.

Once the matter has proceeded to a hearing in the Fair Work Commission, Federal Court of Australia or Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the parties will be provided with a written decision which contains reasons for the decision

Next Steps

At Law Quarter, we’re experienced in providing employers with pre-dismissal guidance and advising and representing employers in relation to unfair dismissal claims and employment-related claims. We’d love to help. Contact our team on 02 8324 1333 for a free consult today.

The articles on this website comprise legal general information and not legal advice. It is general information presented and must not be relied upon without specific legal advice being sought in each individual case. In the event that you wish to obtain legal advice on the contents of this general information, you may do so by contacting our office to discuss.

Jacqui Jubb

Law Quarter

Email: jacqui@lawquarter.com.au

PS Need more advice as an employer in managing employees in the new flexible working climate? Check out our COVID-19: Working from Home Guide here

Harsh Dismissal: That Voice Mail Message and a Lesson for Employers.

Harsh Dismissal: That Voice Mail Message and a Lesson for Employers.

Employment Law

Not happy about your employee’s conduct and considering dismissal? First, take some time to reflect on your obligations and your employee’s history of employment.

As widely reported, on 7 September 2017 the FWC ordered Tassal Group Limited T/A Tassal Operations Pty Ltd to pay compensation to Ms Chapman in the sum of $8229.00.

That Voice Mail Message

Ms Chapman was employed by Tassal as a level 1 processing employee. Her duties included scaling, slicing, weighing and packing fish.

On 25 April 2017, Ms Chapman called a supervisor at Tassal and left the following voice mail message:

“Hi Michelle, its Avril one of your most loved pains in the arse. Um its ANZAC day, my birthday, and I admit I have over indulged so I’m taking into account one of the golden rules be fit for work and I’m not going to be fit for work so I won’t be there. But um love ya, catch ya on the flip side”

Tassal’s Response

Tassal alleged that the conduct amounted to a breach of its Code of Conduct and to an unacceptable risk to Tassal and its employees.

A letter was given to Ms Chapman when she arrived for work on 27 April. The letter contained the allegation of misconduct and advised that she was to be stood down with pay and was required to respond to the allegations by noon on 28 April 2017.

“You had deliberately made a decision to consume alcohol to the extent that you would not be fit for work on 26 April 2017 when you were required to attend and be in a fit state to carry out your duties safely.”

Ms Chapman’s Reply

Ms Chapman responded by email on 27 April at 7:06 am:

“This is my response to the allegation against me.

Firstly, I did not deliberately make the decision to consume alcohol to the point were (sic) I would be unfit to attend work the following day.

It was by BIRTHDAY, and friends dropped by unannounced. I had my official birthday party on the Monday night and wasn’t expecting visitors on Tuesday, however, visitors I got. As the afternoon went on I realised it was going to be a long night and I believe I acted responsibly and respectfully by contacting management to let them know I wouldn’t be fit for work.

Would it have been wiser for mw to call at 6 am on the 26th and plead illness? I think if I had done that then I wouldn’t be writing this letter now, but it wouldn’t have been the honest thing to do in my opinion.

It was not my intention to deliberately take the day off, the events were not planned and not expected, and again, I feel that contacting management on the 25th was the right and responsible thing to do.”

On 27 April 2017 at 3.47 pm. Ms Chapman sent a further email:

“Dear Duane, I have waited all day for a return phone call from Seonna in regards to whether I am required to attend a meeting tomorrow to discuss the allegations directed towards me. The letter stated that I must respond in writing by 12.00 noon Friday 28 April 2017, and I have done that via email to you, however the letter did not state if I was required to be in attendance on the Friday. I rang Seonna and she assured me she would call me back with the relevant information I needed. She hasn’t done that.

I would also like to add that I feel managments (sic) constant quest in turning ‘MOLEHILLS INTO MOUNTAINS’ is detrimental to our company’s integrity and our code of conduct. The “GO IN FOR THE KILL” mentality is rather disturbing and completely against Tassal’s moral code in my opinion. Management is also responsible for their staff’s wellbeing, although it seems staff are ignored in favour of impressing higher management. I did nothing untoward to deserve that letter, and the fact that I drove all the way from Waterloo, only to be handed a letter and told to leave was totally unprofessional and unforgivable on managements (sic) part.

I would be more than pleased to discuss this matter further with Mark Ryan if given the opportunity. I respect you, and I await your personal response.”

Following further correspondence, Tassal made the decision to terminate the employment of Ms Chapman.

Finding

FWC Deputy President David Barclay found that there was a valid reason for the termination and that Ms Chapman had chosen to over indulge in alcohol on the day before she was due to work to such an extent as to be unable to fulfil her obligations to attend work the next day.

However, the FWC Deputy President David Barclay also found that the termination was harsh.

Tassal relied on a previous incident- a further alleged breach of the Code of Conduct as satisfying the requirement for a warning about the unsatisfactory performance. FWC Deputy President David Barclay disagreed, the previous warning was not for the same conduct and therefore Ms Chapman should have been given a warning:

In this case we have a misguided approach to the employer to the effect that the Applicant has overindulged (in alcohol) to such an extent as to result in her being incapacitated for work in circumstances (unlike the previous instance) where there was no extenuating circumstance which might constitute a justification for that conduct. That constitutes the valid reason. However because this is the first time the Applicant has conducted herself in that manner in 5 years of working for the Respondent to terminate her employment was harsh. I agree with the Applicant that another sanction such as performance management or a further, perhaps even final, warning was appropriate.

Lesson for Employers

Employers proposing to terminate employment for unsatisfactory conduct need to carefully consider the history of an employee’s conduct and the appropriateness of a warning vs dismissal.

If you have any questions on the above, please contact us.