A decision has been made in the High Court today (13/08/2020) to reject unions’ arguments that shift workers that work longer than standard hours are entitled to additional paid personal/carer’s leave each year.

This decision overrules the Federal Court decision, handed down on 21 August 2019, which stated that shift workers should accrue paid leave based on the length of their shift, allowing 12-hour shift workers to accrue 120 hours of paid personal leave per year, as opposed to the standard 76 hours, based on a 7.6-hour working day.
Today, the High Court stated that, for the purposes of s96(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), it is “notional”, with a ‘day’ amounting to one-tenth of the equivalent of an employee’s ordinary hours of work in a two week period.

“The ‘working day’ construction adopted by the majority in the Full Court (and urged by the union parties in this Court) is not consistent with the purpose of s96 or the stated objectives of the Fair Work Act of fairness, flexibility, certainty and stability.”

In essence, this decision ensures equality among employees, regardless of hours worked. This will have implications for employers and employees particularly in the mining, construction, manufacturing and medical industries, which are highly dependent on shift workers.

With the introduction of Stage 4 restrictions in Victoria, employers are facing additional requirements if they are to continue operating.

Whilst some businesses will be required to completely stop their operations, others will be allowed to continue operating, subject to additional obligations, including having in place a COVID Safe Plan.

A COVID Safe Plan, which will need to be updated regularly, must set out:

• the employer’s actions to help prevent the introduction of coronavirus in their workplace
• the level of face-covering or personal protective equipment (PPE) required for their workforce
• how the employer will prepare for, and respond to, a suspected or confirmed case of coronavirus in the workplace

In addition to having a COVID Safe Plan, businesses permitted to operate during Stage 4 restrictions will also need to:

• ensure employees work from home where possible
• collect records of all workers, subcontractors, customers and clients who attend the work premises for 15 minutes or longer (certain exemptions will apply)
• ensure there are four square meters per one worker in enclosed workspace or in shared areas
• ensure that workers do not work across multiple sites or for multiple employers (subject to exemptions)
• report any positive cases of coronavirus to DHHS, Worksafe, Health and Safety Representatives as well as notifying the workforce
• regularly clean facilities and shared spaces
• undertake risk assessments for cleaning and the potential closure of the workplace

Premier Daniel Andrews announced today that those employees who will be deemed as essential workers and who will continue attending their place of work, will need to carry permits signed off by their employer. The permit paperwork is expected to be made available online later today.

The Federal Government also announced that a $1,500 “disaster payment” will be available for workers who are required to self-isolate because of coronavirus but who do not have leave entitlements. For now, the payment will only be available to Victorian employees and workers will be able to apply for the payment from tomorrow.

If you require any assistance in navigating the new restrictions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Broadlex Services Pty Ltd v United Workers’ Union [2020] FCA 867

The Federal Court has clarified, on appeal, a grey area for employers as to whether an obligation to pay redundancy entitlements is triggered in circumstances where an employee continues their employment with the same employer, however, on substantially inferior terms.
The Federal Court has held that where an employer imposes a unilateral amendment to the terms of an employee’s employment that places the employee in a substantially inferior position, the employer will not be able to rely on the fact that the employee acquiesced to the amendment after it was imposed on them to successfully argue:

1. the employment relationship endured after the amendment;
2. the employee’s employment was not “terminated” for the purpose of s 119(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act); and
3. the amendment did not give rise to a redundancy entitlement under s 119 of the FW Act.

Employers should take heed that keeping an employee’s employment on foot, but on substantially inferior terms, will trigger the obligation under the FW Act to provide the employee redundancy pay if the amendment to the employee’s conditions of employment has not been achieved through genuine agreement.

The decision is timely, as many employers in the current COVID-19 pandemic environment grapple with a growing need to reduce employees’ hours and pay, assign them to different roles, etc.
It is worth noting that the Federal Government’s JobKeeper scheme, currently permits eligible employers in certain circumstances to issue a direction to eligible employees, requiring them to work reduced hours for a certain period. The decision is relevant for employers who are seeking to make changes not covered by the JobKeeper scheme.

Background to the Appeal

From 1 May 2014, Ms Brizitka Vrtkovski was employed by Broadlex Services Pty Ltd as a full-time cleaner.
On 15 August 2017, following a reduction in demand for cleaning services from one of Broadlex’s clients, Ausgrid, Broadlex informed Ms Vrtkovski that:

1. it had made the decision to reduce her hours of work from full-time to part-time having considered its ‘work flow’; and
2. the change would take effect from 12 September 2017.

Ms Vrtkovski refused to sign a consent form to the change, however, began working the reduced hours from 12 September 2017.
United Voice (now the United Workers’ Union) brought proceedings against Broadlex on behalf of Ms Vrtkovski in the Local Court seeking redundancy pay for her and a declaration that Broadlex had breached the NES in accordance with s 119 of the FW Act.

The Local Court found inter alia there was no express support in the authorities for Broadlex’s argument that:

1. an employee is only entitled to redundancy pay under s 119 of the FW Act if the employment relationship has been terminated; and
2. the employment relationship between the parties continued despite the reduction of Ms Vrtkovski’s hours of work and her acceptance of that reduction.

The Federal Court Decision

Section 119(1) of the FW Act provides that an employee is entitled to be paid redundancy pay by the employer if the employee’s employment is terminated at the employer’s initiative because the employer no longer requires the job done by the employee to be done by anyone, except where this is due to the ordinary and customary turnover of labour.

In this case, Broadlex argued that Ms Vrtkovski was only entitled to redundancy pay if the employment relationship had been terminated. Broadlex submitted that because the employment relationship continued, that is, by Ms Vrtkovski continuing to perform work at the reduced hours, her employment, for the purpose of s 119(1) of the FW Act, had not been terminated, and accordingly an entitlement to redundancy pay did not arise.

As part of determining the case, the Federal Court closely considered what is meant by the phrase “employment is terminated” in s 119(1) of the FW Act, and how the phrase relates to the concepts of: an employment relationship, and a contract of employment.
The Federal Court decision ultimately confirmed an employment relationship does not endure where:

1. an employer imposes a unilateral amendment to an employee’s employment that leaves the employee in a substantially inferior position; and
2. the employee accepts that unilateral amendment.

Accordingly, the Federal Court held that Ms Vrtkovski’s employment was terminated by Broadlex for the purpose of s 119(1) of the FW Act, and given Broadlex no longer required her full-time job to be done by anyone, she was entitled to redundancy pay.

Lessons for employers

To minimise the risk of inadvertently triggering redundancy entitlements, employers are encouraged to enter into meaningful consultation with their employees regarding the need to vary the terms of their employment in response to operational needs in the current climate.

Where necessary, employers should be proactive in observing the requirements of applicable industrial instruments and seek professional advice before imposing any amendments.

COVID-19 presents the University sector with a unique set of challenges.  These include staffing issues arising from a rapid transition to remote learning, funding shortfalls and proposed fee changes, and the different dynamics impacting local and international enrolments.  Workdynamic is keeping up to date on University employment strategies in this environment and working with a number of our University sector clients on both immediate and longer term approaches.  Some key recent developments include:

• The University of Melbourne’s staff have rejected the variation proposal to permanently remove their latest pay rise and introduce voluntary redundancy packages.  The University has indicated they will instead move ahead with workforce reductions.
• Staff at the University of Western Sydney have supported an application for a variation to their enterprise agreements to introduce a ‘banked additional leave’ scheme involving employees purchasing extra leave in connection with specific shutdown dates, in return for a University commitment not to stand down any employees through to the end of 2020.
• Monash University, University of Western Australia and La Trobe have made similar commitments to achieve temporary cost savings with an assurance of no forced redundancies or stand downs.
• We are awaiting the outcome of a University of WA vote on a variation to defer pay rises due in January, cancel payment of leave loading and to direct employees to purchase 19 days of additional leave, to be taken over the Christmas and New Year period.  The proposal, supported by the NTEU, is expected to be approved by employees.

Are employees entitled to access paid personal/carer’s leave or compassionate leave whilst being lawfully stood down?

Generally, no, they are not.

In a recent decision likely to be a relief to many employers, the Federal Court has dismissed claims brought by several Unions against Qantas that employees are entitled to access paid personal or compassionate leave during their stand down.

Importantly, the decision only examined stand down directions made pursuant to section 524 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) or a relevant Qantas enterprise agreement. However, the reasoning can be expected to apply equally to JobKeeper enabling stand down directions, as the relevant wording considered by the Court is in the same terms as the recent JobKeeper FW Act amendments.

Background

The dispute came before the Court in late April 2020, following a decision by Qantas to deny employees access to personal and compassionate leave whilst they are stood down by the company due to a stoppage of work caused by COVID-19.

Qantas maintained that the entitlement to such leave is an entitlement of an employee to take leave from otherwise performing work they are required to perform. As there was no work for stood down employees to perform, there was no requirement to continue paying the leave.

The Unions challenged Qantas’ position, relying amongst other things on section 525(b) of the FW Act, which provides that an employee is not taken to be stood down during a period when they are “otherwise authorised to be absent’ from their employment.

The Unions submitted that an employee who takes personal or compassionate leave is ‘authorised to be absent’ within the meaning of section 525(b), has therefore not been stood down and is entitled to the paid leave.

Decision

The Court concluded that whatever the source of the claimed leave entitlements (be it under the FW Act or the relevant Qantas enterprise agreements) the Unions’ claims failed on a proper analysis of the terms, object and purpose of the relevant leave and stand down provisions.

Object and purpose of the right to stand down employees

The Court examined the principles relevant to the lawful stand down of employees, recognising that any right of an employer to stand down an employee without pay is to be found in either legislative provisions or the terms of an industrial agreement.

The Court accepted the submissions of Qantas that the two principal purposes of the stand down power (whether under section 524 of the FW Act or under an enterprise agreement) were to:

1. provide “financial relief” to an employer from paying wages in circumstances where, through no fault of its own, the employer has no work that the employees can usefully perform; and
2. protect the employees from what would otherwise flow from the termination of their services.

Object and purpose of personal and compassionate leave entitlements

The Court also considered the FW Act provisions conferring the entitlements to personal and compassionate leave. It concluded that the object and purpose of those entitlements is to:

1. serve as a ‘form of income protection’; and
2. allow employees to take leave when they would otherwise be required to perform work.

In relation to the leave entitlements conferred by the Qantas enterprise agreements, the Court also considered that the terms of those particular provisions were consistent with the leave entitlements being a form of income protection, as per the FW Act entitlement. Indeed, the Court cautioned that, in the absence of clear language in an enterprise agreement, a departure from the entitlement provided by the FW Act should be resisted.

Having considered the intersection of these matters, the Court agreed with Qantas’ position, finding that where an employee has been lawfully stood down in circumstances where there is no work for the employee to perform and thereby derive income, an employee is not entitled to access personal or compassionate leave.

The Court observed that to do so would go against the object and purpose of those entitlements -namely to be relieved from the work which the employee was otherwise required to perform. Conversely, to expose the employer to a liability to pay leave entitlements after lawfully standing down their employees would defeat one of the two principal purposes of stand down – namely to protect the employer against such claims.

Finally, the Court found that the Unions’ reliance on section 525(b) of the FW Act did not alter its conclusion. It found the preferable construction of that section is directed to those circumstances where the provisions of the FW Act ‘authorise’ or ‘entitle’ an employee to be absent from their employment – such as: sections 108 (eligible community service activity), 111 (jury service), and 114 (public holidays).

A reminder to employers

For most employers, the question of whether personal or compassionate leave may be accessed by staff in circumstances of stand down has been determined in the negative by this decision. However, there may be employers for whom the terms of their relevant industrial agreement could result in a different outcome.

Accordingly, before denying any stood down employee access to personal/carer or compassionate leave, employers are encouraged to clarify the source and terms of the leave entitlements and to seek advice.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited [2020] FCA 656

The information in this article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain specific advice relevant to your circumstances.

A recent sexual harassment decision by the South Australian Employment Tribunal has found that a casual supermarket assistant was sexually harassed by her colleague. The Tribunal condemned the supermarket’s handling of the complaints and found them vicariously liable for the actions of their employee as a result of its failures. Her Honour Deputy President Judge Farrell noted the case “highlights the need to ensure that employers conduct independent investigations and maintain proper records when complaints are made”.

Sexual harassment allegations

The supermarket assistant complained to management following a number of incidents where the Head chef pushed up against her with his hand squashed between her and his body. This report followed an increasing pattern of inappropriate behaviour including touching and walking past the assistant more frequently than was necessary in an “increasingly invasive, aggressive and sexualised manner”.

Following the complaint, the store manager and HR manager reviewed CCTV footage of the incident but decided there was “nothing of concern”, and the footage was automatically destroyed a couple of weeks later. A month after the complaint, the assistant was advised by HR that the footage “did not show anything inappropriate, and so no further action had been taken”.

Findings of the Tribunal

The Tribunal found that the managers involved were poorly equipped to conduct an investigation and made a significant numbers of errors and omissions with regards to their investigation process which included failures to:

• properly train their staff in relation to sexual harassment;
• take proper statements;
• put precise allegations to the respondent;
• speak to potential witnesses in a timely manner;
• conduct and complete an investigation into the allegations in a timely manner; and
• report the outcome of the investigation to the parties involved in a clear and timely manner.

The Tribunal determined that while the sexual harassment was “not of the most serious kind nor did it continue over a period of time“, the employer and the respondent were jointly ordered to pay $30,000 for general damages including “psychological harm, suffering and hurt feelings“.

Independent and timely investigations

Of particular note is Judge Farrell’s reminder that organisations “need to ensure that employers conduct independent investigations and maintain proper records when complaints are made”. Engaging an independent investigator can be a cost effective and practical way of ensuring that thorough investigations with clear outcomes occur in a timely manner. Outsourcing investigations is a wise investment when seeking to minimise exposure to risk. In this particular case, the supermarket was found vicariously liable for its employee’s behaviour as a result of its failure to properly investigate the complaint. In addition, the employer’s failure to adequately respond to the complaint exacerbated the impact on the assistant.

Evans v Ikkos Holdings Pty Ltd and Ythos Holdings Pty Ltd and Ikia Holdings Pty Ltd T/As Pasadena Foodland and Crugnale [2019] SAET 222 (7 November 2019)

The information in this article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain specific advice relevant to your circumstances.

The Federal Court has provided reassurance to HR practitioners that it can be reasonable to dismiss a worker with incapacity to perform the inherent requirements of a role, even where that incapacity may be connected with a disability. However it’s not quite as simple as it sounds…

Extended absence due to stress and depression

In 2018, a claim was brought against Western Union Business Solutions alleging that it had contravened section 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act), by taking adverse action because of a physical or mental disability.

The employee was dismissed after a seven-month absence from work. The absence was supported by a series of medical certificates variously referring to a ‘medication condition’ and diagnoses of work related stress and a depressive disorder. During the extended absence, a number of requests were made requesting attendance at a medical practitioner nominated by Western Union for an independent medical evaluation. This assessment did not occur, and ultimately, on 8 May 2017, Western Union terminated the employee’s employment. The termination letter cited, among other things, the employee’s absence (including on unpaid leave), his refusal to attend a medical assessment, and ongoing concerns about the employee’s capacity to return to work.

The decision: the dismissal was based on a “manifestation” of a disability

On 30 November 2018, Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Flick found that, while the HR Manager genuinely believed that the dismissal was not because of a disability, the dismissal was motivated, in part, by the “manifestation” of the employee’s claimed mental disability. It therefore followed that Western Union had under s351 of the Fair Work Act discriminated against Mr Robinson due to his “mental disability”. Western Union was ordered to pay $140,000 and an additional $20,000 fine.

The appeal – a question of capacity to work

On appeal, the Full Court found that determined that no such discrimination had occurred. In particular, Justice Kerr noted that the HR Manager was not aware of any manifestation of a disability, and indeed did not believe that the employee was unwell.

The Full Court also rejected the argument that the executive’s incapacity was part of his disability. Rather, the Court held that a distinction can be drawn between an underlying medical condition and the incapacity that results. In doing so, the Court found that the reason for dismissal related solely to the employees capacity or willingness for work, and not because of any underlying disability.

Importantly, the Court noted:

“not every consequence of a disability which is to be regarded as a ‘manifestation’ of the disability such that the consequence is to be regarded as comprising a part of the disability. The question is what the disability is, which does not necessarily equate to what the disability causes… For example, behaviours associated with a particular mental illness might be shown to be a ‘manifestation’ of the illness (harmoniously with the definition of “disability” in the Disability Discrimination Act). However, the fact that the collection of attributes which comprise the disability result in incapacity for work would not necessarily compel the conclusion that the incapacity for work was part of the disability as opposed to being a consequence of having the disability.”

A reminder to employers

This decision is significant as it confirms that employers can lawfully dismiss an employee in circumstances where this is a question about their capacity or willingness to work, even where this is an asserted underlying medical condition. The decision shows that the Courts will draw a distinction between a disability and the consequences of that disability as it relates to the workplace.

The decision also provides cautionary reminder of the need to be mindful that a disability is more than just the ‘label’ of the condition, but also extends to the manifestations of the particular condition. For example, in the case of a depressive illness, it may well be the manifestations include symptoms such as anxiety or sleeplessness. These ‘manifestations’ cannot form part of the operative reason for decisions adverse to employee’s interests.

Western Union Business Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd v Robinson [2019] FCAFC 181 (23 October 2019)

The information in this article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain specific advice relevant to your circumstances.

It’s old news that volunteers are afforded many of the same ‘rights’ as workers, particularly with respect to health and safety. Expanding on this, the Fair Work Commission has determined that it has jurisdiction to deal with an application by a volunteer to stop bullying in the workplace.

There is a legal distinction between a person who is employed or contracted to perform work for financial reward and volunteers, who give their time willingly for the common good and without financial gain. However, volunteers still have standing to bring certain applications against the organisation for which they perform work.

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) gives the Commission the power to issue orders to prevent ‘workers’ from being bullied in the workplace. This can include orders requiring an individual or group of individuals to stop the bullying behaviour, as well as orders relating to the conduct of the employer. In this context, the term ‘worker’ has the same meaning as in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Broadly, a worker is an individual who performs work in any capacity, including as an employee, a contractor, a subcontractor, an outworker, an apprentice, a trainee, a student gaining work experience or a volunteer.

Under this provision, a volunteer providing foster care in connection with Barnardos Australia has applied to the Commission seeking a stop-bullying order. The volunteer alleges he has been subjected to workplace bullying by managers at Barnardos Australia, which the charity denies.

Barnados Australia brought a jurisdictional challenge on the basis that the volunteer was not performing work for the charity. Rather, it was argued that the volunteer was performing work as a foster carer under the authority of the Director-General who was exercising the power conferred on the Director-General under section 518(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 (ACT).

In September, Commissioner Hampton determined the jurisdictional issue in favour of the volunteer. Commissioner Hampton determined that the volunteer was performing work in his capacity as a volunteer for Barnardos Australia. Accordingly, he is considered a ‘worker’ for the purposes of the Act and is eligible to bring the application.

Importantly, Commissioner Hampton noted in this jurisdictional decision:

“The statutory, contractual and practical circumstances of this case have been important and each case must be considered in its own jurisdictional context. The finding that Mr Legge is a worker for present purposes should not be confused with a finding that he is employed by Barnardos Australia or is anything other than a volunteer worker. I have also not determined whether there is any merit to the substantive application and consideration of that awaits the Commission.”

In short, watch this space.

Workdynamic Australia has significant experience in assisting not for profit organisations meet their obligations and entitlements in relation to both paid workers and volunteers. In this regard, establishing best practice policies, training and systems to support all workers is a proven risk mitigation strategy.

The information in this article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain specific advice relevant to your circumstances.

Commentary has been rife following Israel Folau’s termination and the dismissal of a federal public servant for making anonymous tweets critical of government and opposition policies and parliamentarians. Media headlines have sensationalised the loss of free speech and labelled the decisions draconian and Orwellian and heralded warnings for employees’ use of social media.

Controversy aside, the cornerstone of the Comcare v Banerji* High Court ruling was a reasonable and clear code of conduct which set out expectations around employee conduct. In the age of prolific social media platforms, which provide anonymous individuals and sports stars with national exposure, organisations have never been more cautious about the “brand” their employees present online.

In the case of Banjeri, a public affairs officer, “she began broadcasting tweets on matters relevant to the Department, using the Twitter handle “@LaLegale”4.There were more than 9,000 such tweets, at least one of which was broadcast during the respondent’s working hours, and many of which were variously critical of the Department, other employees of the Department, departmental policies and administration, Government and Opposition immigration policies, and Government and Opposition members of Parliament.”

Banjeri originally lodged an unfair dismissal claim in 2013, arguing she was unlawfully fired from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. While this claim was dismissed she was later successful in a workers’ compensation case claiming compensation for a psychological injury as a result of the termination of her employment. In these proceedings, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal found her dismissal was unreasonable in part because it had impeded her implied right to freedom of political communication.

Comcare appealed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s decision to the Federal Court, however the Commonwealth Attorney-General removed the appeal to the High Court.

On 7 August 2019, the High Court unanimously allowed the appeal. The High Court specifically noted that employees were not protected by anonymity.

“there is no reason to suppose that “anonymous” communications cannot fail to uphold the integrity and good reputation of the APS… as a rule of thumb, anyone who posts material online, particularly on social media websites, should assume that, at some point, his or her identity and the nature of his or her employment will be revealed.”

Additionally, the Court determined that the requirements of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) and the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct and guidance documents did not infringe on implied freedom of political communication as their intent was to achieve an apolitical public service.

The Australian Government Solicitor’s office has published a commentary of this particular case**, highlighting implications for decision makers. This landmark ruling does not provide precedent for employers to dismiss workers for comments on social media which they simply don’t like.

“The Court referred with approval to the content of various guidance documents issued by the APSC and other agencies about the proper conduct of APS employees, including guidance about the need to act consistently with the APS Values concerning an impartial and apolitical public service in the use of social media.”

Instead, this recent ruling highlights key considerations for Australian businesses when developing, implementing and enforcing codes of conduct, associated policies and guidance documents. It is not enough to make a statement around the expectations of employee behaviour in a code of conduct, without careful consideration within the legislative framework and whether such expectations are reasonable. An effective code of conduct will articulate employees’ rights and obligations within the context of their employment and specify if this extends to things such as public commentary and social media use.

Further, decision-makers who are responsible for determining whether employee behaviour breach codes need to carefully consider all of the circumstances before determining if an employee’s conduct is inconsistent with the documented expectations of the organisation.

The decision also serves a reminder that any disciplinary action must be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the misconduct and the personal circumstances of the employee in question.

Workdynamic has extensive experience in developing and reviewing codes of conduct and a keen understanding of the enforcement of these types of policies. Our application of such policies in workplace investigations affords us particular insight into how best to develop, document and deliver the expectations an organisation has of its employees.

* Comcare v Banerji[2019] HCA 237 August 2019 C12/2018

** https://www.ags.gov.au/publications/express-law/el279.html

The information in this article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain specific advice relevant to your circumstances.

The importance of procedural fairness

A recent decision by the Fair Work Commission* assessed certain inadequacies of an investigation conducted by Mooroolbark Child Care Centre following an altercation between two child care workers. Whilst the dismissal was ultimately upheld due to the seriousness of the conduct in question, the Commission noted a number of flaws with respect to the investigation process which were considered to weigh in favour of a finding of unfair dismissal.

Commissioner McKinnon said, “In some respects, the process was orthodox. An allegation was made, [the employee] was stood down on full pay, and an investigation occurred before allegations were formally put and determined.”

However, the Commission noted that whilst the employer considered the respondent’s history of domestic violence and related mental health in deciding to dismiss her, it failed to recognise the necessary causal link between one’s prior history and present employment circumstances. The employer also failed to provide the respondent with an opportunity to put her past history into context, and as such these issues could have only been fairly considered with the input of the respondent. Denying the respondent the opportunity to address this resulted in a denial of procedural fairness.

Commissioner McKinnon also noted that other matters that arose during the course of the investigation were not dealt with by the employer on an equal footing which weighed further in favour of a finding of unfair dismissal. The Commissioner stated that this “… highlights both the importance of objectivity and the difficulty for inexperienced employers in ensuring procedural fairness for employees absent specialist advice and support.”

Applying the findings of the investigation

However, ensuring a procedurally fair investigation is just part of the approach for an organisation in mitigating risk. Understanding the findings of an investigation and how they should be applied within an employment law context in making decisions around disciplinary action are equally important.

A decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission** had a significant financial impact on the Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service (WBHHS). Not only was Dr Gregory Coffey reinstated to his former position of District Director of Medical Services at the WBHHS but he was also awarded compensation for remuneration lost or likely to have been lost as a result of the dismissal.

Dr Coffey’s exemplary and unblemished experience spanned more than 40 years and included 5-years with the WBHHS. Dr Coffey’s performance appraisals had always been positive and his professional judgement as a medical practitioner and administrator had never been the subject of criticism. In his role with the WBHHS, Dr Coffey was responsible for the recruitment and retention of medical officers at three hospitals. However, following an independent investigation, the WBHHS terminated Dr Coffey’s employment on 28 September 2017 as Medical Director and the Chair of its Credentialing Committee for appointing Dr Jocobus Cloete, who allegedly had an identified alcohol issue, to an obstetrics position.

Despite the investigation report making no findings critical of Dr Coffey’s actions, the WBHHS dismissed Dr Coffey for reasons including that he had failed to “ensure the highest, professional and ethical standards were followed for the credentialing of Dr J Cloete“. In fact, the investigation report concluded there was “no evidence that the conduct of any WBHHS employee (excluding Dr Cloete) was deliberate or knowingly in breach of any relevant policy or procedure” and that “All witnesses impressed as cooperative and credible, and it is accepted that all witnesses were acting with the best of intentions in relation to the appointment and credentialing of Dr Cloete“.

Following the test established in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd, the Commission found that Dr Coffey’s “dismissal was harsh” because “it was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct in respect of which the employer acted” and that “the termination was unjust and unreasonable because Dr Coffey occupied no special or different position to anyone else on the Committee but appears to be singled out for special consideration for no obvious or apparent reason.”

Commissioner Thompson stated, “I have carefully considered the findings to substantiate each of the three allegations, relied upon as grounds for terminating his employment on 28 September 2017 and found each of the allegations were on the evidence and material before the Commission, on the balance of probabilities, incapable of being substantiated.”

*Courtney Murphy v ECEC Management Pty Ltd T/A Mooroolbark Child Care Centre [2019] FWC 3169

**Coffey v State of Queensland (Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service) [2019] QIRC 56 (5 April 2019)

The information in this article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain specific advice relevant to your circumstances.