Resources: Blogs

Oops I did it again!

Blogs
|

Costly spelling mistakes

It was reported in the news that an accounting firm was unsuccessful in its application to restrain its former partners from poaching and soliciting its clients after a spelling mistake in an email address meant critical correspondence was not received.

It was reported in the news that an accounting firm was unsuccessful in its application to restrain its former partners from poaching and soliciting its clients after a spelling mistake in an email address meant critical correspondence was not received.

The accounting firm’s (now former) solicitors sent an email to the law firm representing the former partners which was not received by the law firm because the email address of the recipient was spelt incorrectly.

What can employers learn from this costly mistake?

This is a good lesson for all professionals about the importance of paying attention to every detail when it comes to completing work tasks. For example, in the HR space, the utmost attention and care should be taken when drafting employment documents such as employment contracts and policies.

Whilst many employers have a “go to template” that is used for all new hires, it is important that the same mistakes are not repeated in all contracts. One mistake may prove costly for the business, for example, if an employee has not been paid the correct wage under an award because they are wrongly classified as grade 3 rather than grade 4. Also – restraint clauses may be completely useless if the geographical limitation is incorrect or period of restraint sought is omitted.

Every contract should be treated not just as a “copy paste” template but be tailored to the circumstances of the employment. As a general rule, before providing an employment contract to a candidate employers should check:

  • Whether the name of the candidate has been spelt correctly;
  • Whether the address for the candidate is correct;
  • Position title;
  • Start date;
  • End date (if a fixed or maximum term contract);
  • Remuneration / salary details – does the amount include superannuation, bonuses, and allowances etc that are applicable to the employee’s role?
  • Employment status of the employee (i.e. full time, part time or casual);
  • Hours of work; and
  • The correct award or enterprise agreement and the appropriate classification (if applicable).

Employers are also reminded that employment contracts are not the only place where oversights occur. Policy and procedure documents are also important to keep up to date to ensure their ongoing relevance to the business.

 

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’s “tick and flick” training on workplace policies rendered dismissal unfair

Not just the what, but also the why

When relying on a workplace policy as grounds for dismissal, employers must be able to clearly demonstrate that the employee is aware of the policy and has undergone meaningful training on the policy.

Read more...

Hold the Line! - Restraints & Employment Contracts

Workplace Law's Managing Director, Athena Koelmeyer, will guide you through the legal minefield of post-employment restraints.

Read more...

The importance of making policies accessible and easy to understand

Tell me in layman’s terms

Drafting workplace policies and procedures can be a daunting exercise – it requires a careful balance of including (or omitting) information that is necessary from a legal standpoint, whilst still remaining easy to understand and follow for employees.

Read more...

High Court rules on scope of inquiry of redeployment within an employers enterprise

That’s not how this works

In “Where does it end?” we looked at the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2024] FCAFC 45. In that decision, the Full Federal Court refused an application from an employer seeking orders to quash previous decisions and compel the Fair Work Commission from further dealing with unfair dismissal applications lodged by employees who had been made redundant.

Read more...

Mad Mex franchisee to pay $305,000 in damages for sexual harassment claim

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) protects employees from sexual harassment, and as part of the Respect@Work amendments now prohibits sex-based harassment.

Read more...

FWC rejects constructive dismissal claim, finding the employment ended by “mutual agreement”

Mutually beneficial

For an employee to have access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the employee was “dismissed” from their employment within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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 law and sports law.

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

Subscribe

* indicates required