Resources: Blogs

We need to talk...

Blogs
|

Reasonable Management Action and Employee Meetings

The ability to counselling employees about their effectiveness in the workplace is important for employers. Unfortunately, not all employees respond to counselling meetings as productively and openly as employers might hope.

The ability to counselling employees about their effectiveness in the workplace is important for employers. Unfortunately, not all employees respond to counselling meetings as productively and openly as employers might hope.

A meeting can be severely derailed if an employee responds badly to feedback about their work performance or workplace behaviour and, depending on how such circumstances are handled, the employer may face claims that the meeting, or the employer’s conduct in the meeting was unreasonable.

This was the case recently at an ACT government agency. The agency held a meeting with an employee about whom other staff members had complained. As a result of the meeting, the agency faced claims of bullying and harassment in the workplace by the employee, and allegations of psychological injury to the employee.

In that case (S and Comcare (Compensation) [2016] AATA 465), two senior managers conducted the meeting with an employee after receiving complaints that she was dealing with staff in a disrespectful and rude manner. The meeting went for about an hour and involved raising the complaints, giving the employee the opportunity to respond and developing strategies to help the employee improve her management style, including suggesting she keeping a diary to aid her self-reflection skills. The employee did not have a support person with her in the meeting and become upset during the course of discussions.

The employee claimed to have suffered a “major depressive disorder, single episode” as a result of “bullying and harassment by senior officer” said to have occurred during the meeting. Comcare (the employer’s insurer) accepted that the employee had sustained a psychological injury but denied liability to pay her compensation on the basis that the meeting (and what transpired during the meeting) was reasonable administrative (i.e. management) action carried out in a reasonable manner. The employee appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The question for the AAT to decide was whether the meeting was reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.

In reaching a decision, the AAT considered a range of arguments from the employee as to why the meeting was unreasonable. One of the major issues for the AAT to settle was whether the meeting was a formal counselling session or an informal initial discussion. The employee argued that the meeting was a formal counselling meeting and therefore she should have had the opportunity to have a support person there and should have been given details of the complaints before the meeting. In her submission, failing to make allowances for those things meant that the meeting was unreasonable and was carried out in an unreasonable way.

The AAT found that the meeting was actually an informal meeting and that despite one of the senior managers making a formal record of the meeting, the purpose of the meeting was not to make any findings about the complaints or to formally impose any disciplinary penalty but rather to raise the unsubstantiated complaints with the employee and hear her version of events. On finding that the meeting was informal, the AAT held that the employer was under no obligation to give the employee details of the complaints before the meeting, nor was it unreasonable that no support person was present.

The AAT also examined what took place during the meeting and whether the senior managers who conducted the meeting acted unreasonably. Specifically, whether they exhibited bias or yelled, pointed or spoke over the top of the employee.

The AAT found that the senior managers acted professionally during the meeting. It did not accept the employee’s version of events. On this point, the AAT said, “whether an administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner is not established solely on the basis of the impact on the employee.” Meaning that, although the employee didn’t like the meeting and it made her upset, the meeting was not unreasonable.

The AAT did, however, accept that the meeting was not perfect. It said, “The meeting could have been conducted more reasonably... But the fact that the meeting could have been conducted more reasonably does not make it unreasonable.”

In cases such as this, reasonableness will be objectively determined, not based on the employee’s emotional response to the circumstances.

It can be difficult for employers to tell employees when they aren’t meeting expectations, particularly when they take the news badly. But, employers can take comfort in decisions such as this which give authority to the position that even when meetings don’t go perfectly or an employee gets very upset, that does not mean the meeting is unreasonable or has been carried out in an unreasonable manner.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

Hybrid Working: Performance Management and Workplace Behaviour

The second instalment of our 2022 webinar series continues the focus on the employment ‘life cycle’. During the course of this webinar, we will explore the challenges faced by employers when managing the new hybrid workplace.

Read more...

FWC warns against employer’s “concerning” performance management in stop-bullying application

Canteen Crasher

The stop-bullying provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provide a mechanism for the Fair Work Commission to impose orders upon employers (as well as individual employees) which are aimed at stopping bullying behaviour in the workplace.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission critical of investigation process despite the employer’s valid reason for dismissal

Less is more

Employers often see the disciplinary process as an opportunity to raise every single indiscretion by an employee – even though the issues occurred in the past or are minor in nature when compared to other misconduct. However, this approach can weaken the employer’s position, rather than strengthen the decision to dismiss.

Read more...

FWO secures penalties against bar operator and external accounting firm

Closing time

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires employers to keep certain employee records for a period of 7 years. These records are necessary to ensure that employees have been paid their minimum entitlements should an underpayment claim be made.

Read more...

Employer found liable for workers compensation despite worker’s unreasonable perceptions

Fact or fiction

A recent decision of the New South Wales Personal Injury Commission serves as a reminder of the differing standards of proof when determining liability for claims of bullying and/or harassment under workers compensation laws and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Commission finds employee’s flexible working request to work entirely from home was not reasonable

The worst has now passed

One of the many changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) introduced this year include the Fair Work Commission’s new powers to deal with disputes relating to requests for flexible working arrangements.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.