Resources: Blogs

You gotta fight for your right (to get costs)

Blogs
|

Employee who refused settlement offer ordered to pay employer's cost

In our recent blog we discussed the Fair Work Commission (FWC)’s discretion to make a costs order in exceptional circumstances.  The FWC in F v GHS Regional Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 3120 has decided to exercise its discretion to award costs in favour of the Employer once again.

In our recent blog article Running Man – Employee Who Faked Test Results Abandons Hearing we discussed the Fair Work Commission (FWC)’s discretion to make a costs order in exceptional circumstances. The FWC in F v GHS Regional Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 3120 has decided to exercise its discretion to award costs in favour of the Employer once again.

By way of background, Mr F was dismissed after entering his workplace after hours and removing company property without authorisation. Mr F was dismissed in October 2014 on the basis that he failed to comply with GHS’ directives regarding access to premises after hours and the removal of GHS’ property without permission (directives of which Mr F was well aware). In this earlier decision, it was found that GHS did not unfairly dismiss Mr F.

Prior to the Hearing, a series of conciliation meetings were held. During the process Mr F was offered $3,000 on a without prejudice basis to settle his unfair dismissal claim. This was set out in a Letter of Offer to Mr F which made clear that if he refused the offer and his unfair dismissal claim failed, GHS would rely on the letter in pursuit of its costs.

Mr F refused the offer proposed by GHS and did not make a counter offer. Mr F also informed the FWC of his decision to refuse the offer proposed by GHS.

In light of the FWC’s findings at hearing, GHS made an application for an order for costs under section 400A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). GHS argued that Mr F caused it to incur costs because of an unreasonable act or omission in connection with the conduct or continuation of the matter - specifically, that Mr F failed to accept the without prejudice offer.

In its assessment of whether it should award costs, the FWC took into account that whilst Mr F was self represented and was not a “seasoned negotiator”, he was aware that his case was unlikely to be successful. This was further highlighted in the offer to settle the unfair dismissal matter. In addition to this, the FWC concluded that Mr F had unreasonably assessed the prospects of success of his case despite already having in his possession a copy of GHS’ witness statements, supporting documents and outline of submissions.

By not making a counter offer or accepting the offer proposed by GHS, the FWC found that this constituted an unreasonable act or omission which required GHS to incur further costs that went beyond the concept of “hard bargaining.”

As a result, the FWC awarded costs to GHS on an indemnity basis under section 400A of the FW Act. Mr F was ordered to pay GHS at total of $13,875.50.

 

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

Failure to warn employee renders dismissal unfair

Template lesson

Many businesses, and in particular small businesses employers subscribe to human resources information systems which offer access to template letters and policies to provide a ready-made solution or to manage human resources administration.

Read more...

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...

Employee’s exaggerated complaints created psychosocial risk

False alarm

Employers have work health and safety obligations to eliminate or minimise psychosocial risks in the workplace so far as is reasonably practicable. These risks arise from psychosocial hazards including conflict or poor workplace relationships.

Read more...

First Intractable bargaining order made by the Full Bench

How did it end?

Enterprise agreement making under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires bargaining representatives to bargain in good faith. Under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission was provided with new powers to arbitrate and issue a workplace determination to resolve intractable disputes about terms and conditions of proposed enterprise agreement in circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the parties reaching an agreement.

Read more...

Federal Court finds employee was not demoted due to his exercise of workplace rights

The final decision

Employees are protected from adverse action because they have exercised, or propose to exercise, the workplace right to make a “complaint” or “inquiry” in relation to their employment within the meaning of section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.

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.