BlandsLaw - Blog posts from unfair dismissal
Please select your page
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn

It has been accepted that employers may negotiate with their staff to take pay cuts during difficult financial times as an alternative to redundancies. However, in a recent case heard by the FWC, it was found that a Wellpark Holdings employee was unfairly dismissed for refusing to accept a 10% pay cut. The company was experiencing a significant cash flow problem and was wary that cutting jobs may cause their employees to struggle in a tight labor market.

Whilst the company had discussed the option of a wage cut with employees, one employee was not consulted as he was on leave. Upon his return, he was given a letter advising that he had until the next day to agree to a 10% wage reduction or face termination. The FWC found that this was not an appropriate way to approach the issue and the employee should have received a full explanation of the company’s financial troubles, rather than being forced to accept the pay cut.

An employer’s ability to impose pay cuts

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

A senior employee who attended a work-related conference and exhibited signs of drunkenness at 9am on the morning following a night out drinking with work colleagues, has successfully been awarded nearly $300,000 in damages after being wrongly dismissed for serious misconduct.

The employee, a senior manager within the company, spent the night out drinking with work colleagues before falling asleep outside his hotel room in the early hours. He subsequently attended the work training conference, being held in the hotel, whilst still apparently drunk. The alleged behaviour included slurred and louder than normal speech, using animal noises when describing a recent safari and smelling of alcohol. The employee’s behaviour became the subject of an investigation which concluded that he should be summarily dismissed.

Ultimately the issues to be decided by the court rested on the correct interpretation of the employment contract and whether the conduct was properly considered serious misconduct.

Why was the behaviour held not to be “serious misconduct”?

Read more

A recent NSW Supreme Court case[1] considered the summary dismissal of a senior ANZ Bank employee. The employee was terminated for serious misconduct and then sought to sue ANZ for breach of his contract claiming over $9 million in damages.

The alleged misconduct involved a significant leak of information to a Financial Review journalist. The leak involved an internal ANZ email which was illegitimately altered and forwarded on anonymously to a journalist. The altered version claimed that there would be no more lending and that ANZ was ‘closed for business’. The journalist in turn contacted ANZ who conducted an investigation. The investigation concluded that Bartlett was responsible and he was subsequently terminated.

The court decision largely turned on the words of the executive’s employment contract. The contract provided that the executive could be summarily terminated if ‘in the opinion of ANZ’ he engaged in serious misconduct. The executive argued that ANZ needed to prove he was actually guilty of the alleged conduct or that there should be an implied

Read more

Redundancies can be a difficult issue for all involved.
Understanding how to conduct a redundancy properly, fairly and in compliance with the Fair Work Act, will help to avoid a sensitive situation becoming a painful problem further down the track. If you do not follow the correct procedures when making a redundancy, you may find yourself dealing with a claim of unfair dismissal. 
Read more

More Articles