Resources: Blogs

Supreme failure

Blogs
|

Court finds HR manager accessorily liable for adverse action claim

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) contains provisions which make it possible for individuals to be found accessorily liable for their involvement in a contravention of a workplace law. In particular, section 550 of the FW Act provides that a person “involved in” a contravention will be taken to have contravened that provision themselves.

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) contains provisions which make it possible for individuals to be found accessorily liable for their involvement in a contravention of a workplace law. In particular, section 550 of the FW Act provides that a person “involved in” a contravention will be taken to have contravened that provision themselves.

It is for this reason that individuals who are most often involved in managing employee relations, such as directors, HR managers, accountants and payroll, are particularly aware of an employer’s obligations to its employees under the FW Act.

Take, for example, the recent decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (the Court) in United Workers' Union v Bervar Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 418, where the Court was tasked with determining whether a HR manager was accessorily liable for an employer’s adverse action against an employee.

The employee worked as a Production Worker for Bervar Pty Ltd (the Employer), a ready-made pizza production business.

The employee claimed that between March 2020 and May 2020, she had been subjected to aggressive and racist remarks by her Production Manager during the course of discussions about her availability for work and also in a meeting about her work performance. The Employer denied that any such comments were made during those discussions or meetings.

The Court heard that, shortly after one of the meetings in May 2020, the employee became upset and left a shift early. The HR Manager subsequently called the employee to enquire about her welfare. The employee gave the phone to her husband who told the HR Manager that the employee had been bullied and harassed at work. When the HR Manager asked if the employee would be returning to work, her husband responded by saying “she’s never coming back” and that she will be taking the matter to “Fair Work”.

The HR Manager took this to mean that the employee was resigning from her employment and sent a letter to her soon after accepting her resignation.

A few days later, the employee sent an email to the HR Manager asking for confirmation that she remained employed by the Employer. The HR Manager responded to this email confirming that her resignation had been accepted and she was no longer employed.

The United Workers’ Union (Union) subsequently brought an action on behalf of the employee claiming that, amongst other things, the Employer and HR Manager took adverse action against the employee by dismissing her because she had exercised her workplace right of initiating, or proposing to initiate, proceedings under a workplace law.

The Court found that it was in fact the Employer that had terminated the employee’s employment, rejecting the Employer and HR Manager’s submission that the employee had resigned by way of her husband. The Court found that it was wrong for the HR Manager to assume that the husband had the authority to speak on the employee’s behalf and to take no additional steps to verify the existence of such authority.

It was the Court’s view that the HR Manager was concerned that the employee would initiate proceedings against the Employer and therefore took the first opportunity to remove her from the business.

Accordingly, the Court found that the Employer had taken adverse action against the employee by dismissing her from employment because she proposed to exercise a workplace right, being her ability to initiate proceedings under a workplace law pursuant to s 341(1)(b) of the FW Act.

The Court was also very critical of the HR Manager’s actions following the telephone conversation in May 2020. The Court found that despite the HR Manager initiating a call to undertake a welfare check, he did very little to genuinely enquire about the employee’s welfare, especially after learning that she was facing alleged bullying and harassment.

For example, the Court stated that the HR Manager took no steps to initiate any form of investigation into the employee’s allegations, speak to her directly, invite her to put her allegations in writing or speak to any other employee about the events that allegedly occurred.

The Court found the HR Manager’s actions to be “utterly surprising”, stating that:

“[The HR Manager] is an experienced and qualified human resource professional. While he may have the qualifications and experience, it is apparent that he did not do any of the basic things, or make any basic inquiries, an experienced human resource professional might be expected to in the circumstances which confronted him”.

In considering the above, the Court was satisfied that the HR Manager was “involved” in the Employer’s adverse action in dismissing the employee from her employment because she had a workplace right and that he should be held accessorily liable for the contravention.

The Court therefore upheld the adverse action claims against the Employer and the HR Manager and invited further submissions on appropriate penalties and compensation.

Lessons for employers

It is important for employers to bear in mind that the FW Act contains provisions which make it possible for individuals to be found accessorily liable for contraventions of the FW Act. As seen in this decision, the Court will consider an individual’s position within an employer’s business, including their qualifications and experience, in determining whether they should be held accessorily liable for contraventions of the FW Act.

Individuals who regularly deal with employees , such as directors, HR Managers and payroll, should be particularly mindful of an employer’s obligations under the FW Act to ensure that they themselves are not held liable for any breaches.

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 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...

Redundancies and the skills matrix

The Matrix is a system, Neo

When implementing redundancies, it is critical that the process for selecting employees for redundancy is a transparent and objective one. A skills matrix can assist employers in this regard by creating clear and objective criteria against which employees are to be assessed.

Read more...

HR Manager fined $7,600 for accessorial liability in adverse action against employee

Taking it personally

Last year, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found a HR Manager to be accessorily liable for his involvement in an employer’s unlawful adverse action against an employee after she proposed to exercise a workplace right, being her ability to initiate proceedings under a workplace law.

Read more...

Commission finds employee’s flexible working request to work entirely from home was not reasonable

The worst has now passed

One of the many changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) introduced this year include the Fair Work Commission’s new powers to deal with disputes relating to requests for flexible working arrangements.

Read more...

Remote work environment risks and considerations

Barking up a broad tree

Work from home arrangements have become the “new normal” across many workplaces since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read more...

Superannuation obligations for independent contractors

Supercharged

A recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia – Full Court has provided some clarity to employers in relation to when the obligation to pay superannuation will or will not arise.

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.