Resources: Blog

Adverse action taken against employee for failure to perform duties

Blog
|

Muddying the waters

The general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) make it unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against a person for a prohibited reason.

The general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) make it unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against a person for a prohibited reason. Often, however, employees include claims of bullying and harassment that have the effect of “muddying the waters” about the real reason that adverse action was taken.

In Turley v James Frizelles Automotive Group [ 2018] FCCA 2989, an employee claimed that his employer took adverse action against him because he exercised or proposed to exercise a workplace right and that he was dismissed from his employment because he was temporarily absent from work due to stress from bullying and harassment.

The employee was employed as a Finance and Insurance Business Manager at the employer’s Hyundai dealership. In January 2017, the employer introduced a mechanical protection program that provided customers with extended warranty for vehicles. The new warranty program required business managers to enter customer details in the employer’s computer system.

The employee refused to implement the new warranty program and made a number of complaints. These complaints included that the program was a “major workplace change” which he was not consulted on and that it constituted additional duties not within his job description and for which he should receive additional remuneration. The employer met with the employee and explained that the warranty program was within his job description and was an additional administrative task that would take up to fifteen minutes each day.

The employee was issued with a warning and placed on a performance improvement plan in relation to implementing the warranty program. At the same time, the employee also made complaints alleging that he was bullied and harassed by his colleagues.

As a result of his failure to implement the warranty program and non-compliance with the improvement plan, the employee was issued with another warning. The employee’s employment was then terminated – two days after he returned from being on leave for anxiety and stress.

The Federal Circuit Court was satisfied that the employee had workplace rights to make complaints and that the employer’s actions of issuing the employee with warnings, placing him on an improvement plan and terminating his employment was adverse action.

However, the Court was not satisfied that the employer took this adverse action because the employee exercised a workplace right or because he was temporarily absent from work. Rather, the Court was satisfied that the substantial and operative reason for the employer issuing the employee with a warning, placing him on a performance improvement plan and terminating his employment was the employee’s “obdurate position” of refusing to implement the warranty program.

In relation to the employee’s claims of bullying, the Court was not satisfied that he was ostracised, finding that the employee had placed himself in opposition to the warranty program which:

appears to have created a mentality of agitation and vulnerability through which the applicant interpreted the respondent’s pressure for implementation of the Harrier program, the warnings and the PIP, as a form of prosecution when objectively they were reasonable responses of the respondent to his inflexibility.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the employee’s application.

Lessons for employers

Under the general protection provisions of the FW Act, there is a presumption that adverse action was taken for a particular reason or with a particular intent – and it is up to the employer to prove that the action was not taken for a prohibited reason.

It is not uncommon in disciplinary or performance management matters for employees to claim that they were bullied and harassed and that their employment was terminated for this reason, rather than reasons relating to their conduct or performance.

Accordingly, as demonstrated with this case, it is important that employers have direct evidence of the real reason that action was taken in order to rebut the presumption that adverse action was taken for a prohibited reason.

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

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation June 2020

Cases and Legislation June 2020 NEWS ALERTS NSW Work Health Safety Legislation Amendments The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) was recently amended giving effect to some of the recommendations of the 2018 national review of the modern WHS Act. ...

Read more...

Webinar: What You Need to Know: The Rise of Adverse Action and Unfair Dismissal Claims

2020 continues to deliver unprecedented challenges to employers as they manage the economic and workplace culture impact of COVID-19. Difficult, but necessary, decisions taken in relation to workforce numbers together with increased poor employee behaviour has seen a dramatic rise in the number of unfair dismissal and adverse action claims.

Read more...

Adverse action claim initiated against professional football club

Adverse action claim initiated against professional football club

The Chief Operating Officer of Macarthur and South West United FC has launched legal proceedings against the Club, the Club Chair and another director alleging breaches of the general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Salary reduction brought employee under high income threshold

Below not above

The COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic has significantly impacted the financial stability of many businesses. Employers have had to make difficult decisions and implement different measures to ensure the ongoing viability of their businesses. Some of these measures have included asking employees to agree to temporary reductions in their hours of work or to a reduction in their remuneration.

Read more...

Company vicariously liable for injury resulting from skylarking supervisor

All in good fun

Enjoying the company of your colleagues is something most people hope to find in the workplace. It can make work much more enjoyable and lead to lasting friendships. However, fun in the workplace can cross a line when it takes the form of dangerous skylarking or roughhousing.

Read more...

Managing employee conduct and behaviour in the workplace

Draw the line

Managing employee conduct and behaviour can be a challenge. The question of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in the workplace will depend on a variety of factors, including the industry in which the employees work, the overall culture of the workplace and community standards at any given time.

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.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.