Resources: Blog

Common misconceptions about dismissing an employee in their probation period

Blog
|

Free free, set them free!

An employer was ordered to pay $10,000 in compensation to a former supervisor who had been dismissed five months into her probation period.

A recent decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the Court) has shown why employers must always exercise care when seeking to dismiss employees – even during their probation period.

In Pacheco-Hernandez v Duty Free Stores Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2018] FCCA 3734, an employer was ordered to pay $10,000 in compensation to a former supervisor who had been dismissed five months into her probation period.

At the time of the dismissal, the employer’s HR Manager and Area Manager advised the supervisor that the employer was not obligated to provide a reason for terminating her employment. Absent any reason, the supervisor claimed that her employment had been terminated because she had made complaints about other team members.

Based on the evidence before it, the Court could not be satisfied that the supervisor’s complaints were not a substantial and operative factor in the employer’s decision to terminate the supervisor’s employment and found that the employer had contravened the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act).

It is important to note that this decision was not one relating to unfair dismissal.

Rather, the employee had made a claim under the general protections provisions of the FW Act, which prohibit employers from engaging in adverse action against an employee (e.g. terminating their employment) for a prohibited reason (e.g. exercising a workplace right to make a complaint).

There is a common misconception that dismissing an employee during their probation period means that the employer is protected from any subsequent claims that may be brought by that employee and therefore, the employer does not have to give a reason for the dismissal. This is not always the case and the risk of legal proceedings being brought against an employer still exists during the probation period.

Employees, whose employment is terminated in the probationary period, will not be able to make a claim for unfair dismissal because they will not have worked the ‘minimum employment period’, which is a threshold requirement to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction of the FW Act (for small businesses the minimum employment period is twelve months and for all other businesses it is six months).

Despite this, probationary employees are still entitled to make other claims – as evidenced in Pacheco-Hernandez. Employers must therefore ensure that any dismissal, even during a probation period, does not fall foul of the general protections provisions of the FW Act or any other applicable legislation (such as discrimination laws).

If there is any risk of a claim being brought by an employee, legal advice should be sought prior to any action being taken.

 

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

WHS rights and adverse action

A slippery slope

Under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee (such as dismissing them from employment) because they have a workplace right or because they have exercised or chosen not to exercise that right.

Read more...

Employee dismissed for exercising workplace right to take leave

Diamonds are not a girl’s best friend

The general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provide protections against adverse action which is taken for a prohibited reason. Prohibited reasons for taking adverse action include situations where a person has a workplace right and exercises (or proposes to exercise) that right. Workplace rights include the right to utilise leave entitlements under the FW Act.

Read more...

Court finds multiple breaches of general protections provisions

Direction needed

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the Court) recently ruled on an application brought by an employee alleging that three respondents had engaged in breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), including sham contracting and dismissing the employee because she was pregnant.

Read more...

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

Read more...

The importance of WHS refresher training

Not a “one and done” thing

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.

Read more...

Casual Terms Award Review 2021

NEWS UPDATE

In March 2021, the casual employment amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) introduced a new statutory definition of “casual employee” and an entitlement to casual conversion as one of the National Employment Standards (NES).

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.