Workplace Compliance | Local service

Workplace Compliance

Phone: +61 433 817 373

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Businesses
• Local service

22.01.2022 Lacey and Kandelaars v Murrays Australia Pty Limited; Cullen [2017] FWC 3136 (Roe C, 8 June 2017). Facts The two applicants were bus drivers, and each made an application for an order to stop bullying by their Manager. They alleged that the behaviour engaged in by their manager was unreasonable, including: finding fault with work where there was none... raising his voice and being intimidating and turning red hiding in buses in order to frighten the second applicant directing the second applicant to inaccurately fill out his logbook in contravention of fatigue laws, and acting in a confrontational manner with the first applicant. In total 12 bus drivers, including the applicants, gave evidence complaining about the Manager’s behaviour. Outcome The Commissioner found that the Manager had engaged in repeated, unreasonable behaviour and that behaviour created a risk to health and safety. The Manager had bullied the applicants. However, the Commissioner declined to issue an order to stop bullying. He considered that, as the employer had changed the reporting lines so that the applicants would not be directly managed by the Manager, they would not be at risk of bullying continuing. Further, he also considered that the finding of bullying itself would ‘be sufficient to protect Mr Lacey and Mr Kandelaars from the risk of further bullying’.

22.01.2022 Small business employee? There are strict guidelines when it comes to ending employment. Call for a free assessment

21.01.2022 Fichera v Thomas Warburton Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 4382 (Gooley C, 24 May 2012). The employee was a Branch Manager at a branch that had low sales and was underperforming. It was found that the employee was incapable of providing the necessary leadership to improve the performance of the branch and this was a valid reason for dismissal. Note: The employer however failed to follow its own performance management process and warn the employee that his employment was at risk. This rendered the dismissal unfair.

13.01.2022 In Anderson v Thiess Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 6568, Mr Anderson was summarily dismissed for sending a work email that was highly offensive to persons of the Muslim faith. Despite finding that the email was in clear breach of Thiess’ policies and had the potential to cause significant reputational damage to Thiess, the Fair Work Commission awarded Mr Anderson $28,000 in compensation on the basis that the dismissal was nonetheless harsh and unreasonable. The Commission found that the... dismissal was harsh because Mr Anderson was 65 years of age and would have difficulty obtaining other employment The dismissal was unreasonable as Thiess relied too heavily on a previous verbal warning given to Mr Anderson for engaging in the same conduct; and Thiess did not give Mr Anderson sufficient time to accept that the contents of his emails were inappropriate in the Thiess work environment and to apologise during the show cause process.

01.01.2022 Unfair dismissal or General protections claim? There are a number of considerations prior to lodging in the Fair Work Commission.