Resources: Blogs

Free free, set them free!

Blogs
|

Common misconceptions about dismissing an employee in their probation period

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

Employer unlawfully discriminated against employee with breastfeeding responsibilities

It’s a tent-s situation

There are a number of personal attributes that are protected by Australia’s federal and state anti-discrimination laws, such as a person’s race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibilities, breastfeeding, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Read more...

Employer’s withdrawal of role constituted dismissal from employment

Late withdrawal

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.

Read more...

Employee’s exaggerated complaints created psychosocial risk

False alarm

Employers have work health and safety obligations to eliminate or minimise psychosocial risks in the workplace so far as is reasonably practicable. These risks arise from psychosocial hazards including conflict or poor workplace relationships.

Read more...

Bullying prosecution leads to conviction and fine for company and its director

I knew you were trouble

Under work health and safety legislation, persons conducting a business or undertaking have duties to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers in the workplace. It is also accepted that workplace bullying is a risk to health and safety of workers which needs to be managed as any other health and safety risk.

Read more...

Victoria records first workplace manslaughter conviction

Various Australian jurisdictions have been slowly introducing an offence of industrial manslaughter, dealing with workplace fatalities that arise as a result of negligent conduct by a person conducting a business or undertaking or its officers.

Read more...

Court sends clear message to employers on having adequate systems, processes and checks in place to avoid underpayments

Down in flames

The Federal Court of Australia has handed down a record $10.34 million in penalties against two related entities for various contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) resulting in substantial underpayments.

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.