BlandsLaw - Blog posts from Fair Work Commission
Please select your page
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn

Termination for serious misconduct

An employer is permitted to instantly dismiss an employee when their actions amount to serious and willful misconduct. Serious misconduct can severely damage the employment relationship and indicate that the employee no longer wishes to be bound by the employment contract. Typically, this kind of conduct includes theft, fraud, assault, intoxication at work and actions that put other employees and the business itself at risk.

However, the tricky part for employers is knowing when an employee’s actions constitute serious misconduct, and when they don’t. Employers will need to assess the seriousness of the conduct in the circumstances and determine whether the punishment fits the crime. Employers also need to ensure that in all situations they follow a reasonable disciplinary process. Otherwise, employers run the risk that any dismissal will be harsh, unjust and unreasonable.  

The importance of procedural fairness has been a hot topic as of late and even when facing misconduct, employers are urged to follow a fair and reasonable dismissal process. In a recent FWC[1] case,

Read more

 

A common question we are asked is: What are we allowed to do to monitor what our employees are doing at work? Under general law, employers are able in certain circumstances to conduct surveillance over their employees; both with and without their knowledge. But where do we draw the line?

A recent case heard by the FWC highlights the implications for employers when CCTV footage is not used in the right way. Direct Freight Express were ordered to pay over $25,000 in damages for unjustly dismissing an employee, alleging he stole a laptop that went undelivered to Harvey Norman. The company used CCTV footage as evidence for the dismissal, claiming the driver was ‘suspiciously’ trying to ‘obscure the package from the camera’s view’. The drivers request to see the footage was denied at the disciplinary meeting and was shortly after dismissed.

Also, knowing the difference between ‘overt’ and ‘covert’ surveillance is imperative. ‘Overt’, allows for the lawful surveillance of employees where 14 days notice need be given prior to

Read more

Managing your organisation's performance effectively entails managing your employees' performance effectively.

An annual performance appraisal is an integral part of this process but should not be the only time that there is feedback between the employer and the employee.

Regular performance reviews enable you to:

Read more

From 1 January 2014, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) will deal with workplace bullying claims from workers within 14 days of the complaint being made, and will have powers to make orders to stop the bullying. Financial penalties will apply to employers who contravene FWC orders resulting from a bullying claim. This article looks at bullying in the current employment law landscape and then outlines the new laws and some practical steps for employers to get ready for these changes.

Read more

Employers must consider opportunities for redeployment within the company or its associated entities in order for a redundancy to be genuine, according to the Fair Work Act 2009. Typically the courts have applied and interpreted these provisions quite widely; for example consideration of redeployment options should include positions that are more junior or on less pay. But does this include employee redeployment to an overseas operation?

Read more

Employees can get themselves into all sorts of trouble through the misuse of social media in the workplace. But is social media really to blame? Not in all cases - as this cautionary tale illustrates.

The Fair Work Commission recently rejected an unfair dismissal claim from an employee who used LinkedIn to solicit work for his own private business. The employee showed that he had disclosed to his employer, an architectural design practice, that he did small design projects for private clients outside his normal working hours. The employer had accepted this.

Read more

The recent Fair Work Commission decision in Mr Georg Thomas v InfoTrak Pty Ltd T/A InfoTrak [2013] FWC 1134 highlights the importance for  employers of considering both the substance and the process surrounding redundancy.

In this case, Mr Thomas, an Operations Manager of an IT company, brought an unfair dismissal case alleging that his redundancy was not ‘genuine’ because his employer had not discussed it with him or considered him for alternative positions.

Read more

More Articles