Resources: Blog

Consequences of providing false and misleading evidence

Blog
|

The truth will set you free

When dealing with litigated matters, we cannot stress enough the importance of having evidence and witnesses that are credible and reliable to support a party’s position in the proceedings.

When dealing with litigated matters, we cannot stress enough the importance of having evidence and witnesses that are credible and reliable to support a party’s position in the proceedings.

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has shown how providing false and misleading evidence can not only be detrimental to the case, but can also have very serious personal consequences for those who provide that evidence.

In the decision of Durado & Isugan v Foot & Thai Massage Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 1533, Deputy President Kovacic has referred the conduct of two witnesses to the General Manager of the FWC to consider whether they provided false and misleading evidence to the FWC during a hearing, in contravention of the FW Act. If it is found they have provided false and misleading evidence, they face up to twelve months’ imprisonment.

The matter before the FWC concerned applications for unfair dismissal by two employees of a massage parlour in Canberra, ACT. The two employees, employed on 457 visas, had engaged in a romantic relationship in contravention of the employer’s ‘no-relationship’ policy. It was alleged that, upon hearing of the relationship, the employer sought to immediately terminate the employment of these employees and send them back to their home country of the Philippines. The Deputy President ultimately found that the dismissals were unfair and ordered payment of compensation to each employee.

A significant factor in this finding was the reliability (or lack thereof) of the employer’s evidence. The employer had relied on the written statements of its manager/director and the massage supervisor to recount the circumstances of the dismissals, which turned out to be inconsistent.

Subsequent to the manager/director giving his oral evidence at the hearing, during which he could not explain the inconsistencies, there was a luncheon adjournment and the witnesses were photographed in discussion with each other.

Upon return to the hearing, the massage supervisor sought to amend his witness statement so that it was consistent with the manager/director’s evidence. He denied discussing this with the manager/director. When questioned about their discussion, both witnesses asserted that they had simply discussed a separate witness statement which they had agreed could not be tendered as evidence as it was too late in the proceedings.

The witnesses were directed to produce their text messages from the adjournment period, which appeared to discuss what they would say to the FWC about their discussion and the evidence of other witnesses. According to the Deputy President, the text messages suggested that the manager/director had sought in some way to influence the supervisor’s evidence.

The Deputy President also noted that the supervisor had deposed that he was not present at the meetings with the employees where dismissal was discussed, however, the text messages produced to the FWC from the day of the meeting confirmed that he was present at the meetings.

According to the Deputy President, these circumstances suggested that they had provided false and misleading evidence and therefore warranted referral to the General Manager of FWC.

By this referral, the FWC is sending a very strong reminder to any person who provides evidence in the course of litigation that there are very serious consequences for providing evidence that is false and misleading, including possible imprisonment. This is the case regardless of the court or tribunal in which a matter is heard.

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 ordered to pay maximum compensation following “entirely unjust” disciplinary process

Knives Out

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) requires that employers comply with a number of procedural elements in a disciplinary process prior to making a decision about whether an employee’s conduct or behaviour warrants disciplinary action.

Read more...

FWC upholds dismissal of an employee who repeatedly and deliberately accessed customer’s confidential information without authorisation

Celebrity search

During the course of their employment, employees may have access to confidential information which belongs to their employer. This information may be in the form of personal information provided by customers and is therefore sensitive in nature.

Read more...

Full Bench quashes order to reinstate labour hire employee to host employer

Host with the most

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, where it is found by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, the primary remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) is for the employee to be reinstated to the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.

Read more...

FWC finds sexually explicit Facebook post warranted dismissal, despite the employer’s ‘rather unusual’ workplace culture

Not so ‘funny’ meme

The workplace culture of an organisation should reflect the values that the business upholds and expects of its employees. It is becoming increasingly challenging for employers and employees to understand where a line is drawn between a relaxed and open workplace culture and a workplace culture that tolerates inappropriate behaviour.

Read more...

Casual employee unfairly dismissed for Facebook recommendation

Halt before you post

Social media and employee’s conduct online has without doubt added a layer to the employer and employee relationship. While employees may think that their online activities done outside of work hours may be private, their conduct online may become relevant to their employment, for example, where it may disparage their employer, other employees or clients.

Read more...

Vaccinations and the workplace

Shots fired

One of the most topical questions for employers during the COVID-19 pandemic has been whether they need to introduce policies that mandate vaccinations and, if so, what can be done to enforce them in the workplace.

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.