Resources: Blog

Employee awarded compensation after employer sidesteps representative


I’ll get my people to call your people

Allegations of workplace bullying can present some of the most demanding circumstances that an employer will face in the course of the employment relationship. There is the initial response to consider, an investigation, the possibility of counter allegations and, of course, the potential involvement of lawyers and unions.

Allegations of workplace bullying can present some of the most demanding circumstances that an employer will face in the course of the employment relationship. There is the initial response to consider, an investigation, the possibility of counter allegations and, of course, the potential involvement of lawyers and unions.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently considered an unfair dismissal application that involved many of these factors. In Saunders v CSL Limited T/A CSL [2017] FWC 4188 an employee was dismissed, in part, for failing to adhere to his employer’s direction to attend a number of meetings. The reason that the employee failed to attend the meetings was that he didn’t know anything about them.

The employee had been with his employer for less than two years when low level tension and conflict with his manager began. The manager claimed that the employee was underperforming and subjected him to a performance improvement process. Sometime later, the employee lodged a formal bullying complaint against his manager consisting of 19 allegations mostly relating to her criticism of him or to statements she had made about him.

The employer commissioned a third party to conduct an investigation into the bullying allegations which found that some of the allegations were substantiated, but not all. During the course of the investigation, a number of counter allegations about the employee surfaced which resulted in the employer inviting him to a disciplinary meeting.

The employer informed the employee that it intended to commence a disciplinary process but before it could proceed, the employee produced a medical certificate and left the workplace.

He initially engaged a law firm to represent his interests in the disciplinary process, but it ceased acting for him within a relatively short period. In its final correspondence to the employer, the law firm indicated that the employee would respond to the counter allegations personally in due course.

However, before the employer received any correspondence from the employee, he engaged a second representative who contacted the employer’s solicitor over the phone and suggested that the whole situation could end up as an unfair dismissal claim.

Following this call, various emails, text messages and letters were exchanged between the parties and their representatives. The most significant correspondence was a number of letters sent by the employer directly to the employee. These letters were sent to the employee’s home address and his representative was not copied or informed of their existence.

The letters contained requests, and eventually directions, for the employee to attend meetings with his employer about misconduct allegations and failing to properly claim sick leave. The final letter warned that the employee’s employment was at risk of termination.

During this period, the employee continued to be unwell and so temporarily relocated to his parents’ place meaning that he was not at his home address to receive the employer’s letters.

The employee was eventually dismissed for, amongst other things, failing to attend the meetings.

The main question for the FWC was whether there was a valid reason for the employee’s dismissal.

In this set of circumstances, the FWC found that there was not a valid reason and that the employee was unfairly dismissed.

The FWC held that the employer’s actions in bypassing the employee’s representative formed part of a “carefully constructed strategy” that enabled it to find him guilty of failing to adhere to a reasonable and lawful direction. The FWC labelled the employer’s conduct “opportunistic” and awarded the employee in excess of $25,000 in compensation.

Proving that communications requiring action have been received by an employee who is absent from the workplace often poses logistical difficulties. In this case, the employee had a representative and communication to the representative could have avoided the issues agitated in this case about communications not being received.

The method of delivery of communications to employees not in the workplace is an important decision – mail may not be received either at all or in a timely manner, email to a private email address in the absence of a “read” receipt may not be sufficient to prove the employee received the communication, a courier or someone delivering the communication in person may be seen as unduly intrusive. Careful thought is required when communicating with absent employees, especially during the course of disciplinary proceedings.


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

FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.


Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.


Commission finds termination letter sent to inactive email address was not notification of dismissal

You've got mail!

Given the serious nature of matters such as dismissals, employers should, as far as reasonably practicable, communicate such matters in person to ensure that there is no confusion about when the employee was made aware of any issues with their employment.


Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.


Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


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.