Resources: Blog

Employer’s disciplinary process didn’t force resignation

Blog
|

I'll go first

The commencement of a disciplinary process against an employee is not an insignificant matter. It serves to notify an employee that their employer has serious concerns about their employment; whether that is the standard of the employee’s performance, their conduct or their behaviour.

The commencement of a disciplinary process against an employee is not an insignificant matter. It serves to notify an employee that their employer has serious concerns about their employment; whether that is the standard of the employee’s performance, their conduct or their behaviour. Importantly, it notifies an employee that they are at risk of being dismissed.

Obviously, the final decision as to whether or not an employee is dismissed should not be made or communicated to the employee until the conclusion of the disciplinary process. However, given the seriousness of these matters, it is not uncommon for employees to assume that they are being dismissed before the disciplinary process is at an end.

In a recent unfair dismissal decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC), a large discount department store in Queensland has successfully shown the importance of going through an appropriate disciplinary process even if the employee thinks the outcome is pre-determined.

In Moore v Woolworths Group Limited t/as Big W [2020] FWC 963, an employee claimed that she had no choice but to resign from her employment during a disciplinary process after she saw a draft letter stating that her employment was being terminated.

The employer had commenced the disciplinary process against the employee following an investigation into alleged safety breaches by a number of employees. The employee was interviewed as part of the investigation, and she was notified of the findings shortly after its conclusion.

The employer then provided the employee with an opportunity to show cause as to why her employment should not be terminated. Once in receipt of her response, the employer requested a meeting to discuss the outcome of the investigation and the disciplinary process.

On the morning of the meeting, the employee was advised by a Second in Charge that she was going to be dismissed. The Second in Charge had obtained unauthorised access to the employee’s Manager’s email account and located a draft termination letter, which he then provided to the employee. Having seen the draft letter, the employee tendered her resignation before the meeting could take place.

The FWC was not satisfied that the employer had done anything to force the employee to resign. It had commenced a disciplinary process, which it was entitled to do, particularly in the face of potential work health and safety breaches.

The FWC accepted that the actions of the Second in Charge were unauthorised and could not reasonably be seen as a formal decision made by the employer, and so the disciplinary process had not yet concluded. The employee could have waited until the process concluded but she elected to resign instead, and in doing so, she gave up the right to pursue a claim for unfair dismissal because she was not dismissed.

The application was therefore dismissed.

Lessons for employers

When commencing a disciplinary process, employees should be made aware that their employment is at risk of being terminated at the end of the process. The final decision as to whether or not an employee will actually be dismissed should not be made or communicated to the employee until the process is concluded.

Making this clear at the outset will reduce the risk of an employee misinterpreting the purpose of the disciplinary process and, as this case shows, will provide a legitimate basis to defend any claim that an employee was forced to resign because of the process.

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.