Resources: Blogs

Employees raising concerns about workplace issues or incidents must not only be willing to complain, but also to then support the employer who acts in relation to that complaint once the matter comes to trial

Blogs
|

Employee witness support for employer’s actions essential in FWC

The widely reported decision of Commissioner Stanton in William F v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 2343 highlights the importance of witnesses participating in the FWC’s hearing processes.

The widely reported decision of Commissioner Stanton in William F v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 2343 highlights the importance of witnesses participating in the FWC’s hearing processes.

Employees raising concerns about workplace issues or incidents must not only be willing to complain, but also to then support the employer who acts in relation to that complaint once the matter comes to trial. Employers too, must also create an environment that is supportive and ensures that the employee will be protected throughout this process.

Commissioner Stanton ordered the reinstatement of an employee who was known to be a member of a well known Motorcycle Club. Mr F was dismissed with notice by his employer as the result of his serious misconduct, in particular swearing, inappropriate language, bullying and harassing others and interference with company property (refusing other employees access to vehicles). Given the nature of the allegations, the Complainant was concerned for his safety and as a result the employer arranged for a security company to monitor the employee's home.

The Complainant and other employees were reluctant to participate in the formal investigation conducted by the employer and also refused to give evidence at the Hearing. Commissioner Stanton found that the investigation was flawed because the employer accepted the Complainant’s version of the events without obtaining proper supporting evidence or corroboration. As a result, Mr F was reinstated and returned to the workplace.

Employers need to keep in mind that it may take a lot of courage for a Complainant to come forward, especially if they feel threatened, scared or intimidated or if there is a fear that their loved ones or fellow employees may be affected by their decision to speak up. It is important for employers to offer a supportive environment to encourage complainants to raise important issues. Examples of how employers can do this include:

  • Having a clear grievance policy and/or procedure where employees are able to lodge complaints or voice concerns they may have within the organisation. It is important that the policy makes clear that all matters will be kept confidential and only those who are required to know about the complaint will be made aware of it.
  • Offering employees access to an Employee Assistance Programme (“EAP”) for confidential external counselling and support.
  • Making arrangements for security support at the employee’s home and adding additional security measures to the workplace.

This decision also serves as a reminder that for an employer to respond to a complaint, first hand evidence (i.e. evidence that is from the Complainant or witness actually seeing an event or being part of an event) is the preferred form of evidence required – hearsay evidence (i.e. second hand evidence – someone else had seen or was a part of an event and they informed someone else) does not carry much weight. Whilst it is tempting, employers must steer clear of assuming everything the Complainant has said is true and avoid making decisions purely based on unsubstantiated allegations.

To avoid an outcome such as in the this decision, employers should encourage Complainants to put their complaints in writing and/or provide a written Statement as this will give the employer the opportunity to rely on something that is first hand evidence in circumstances where the Complainant may decide to withdraw their complaint or decide not to appear at a hearing for some reason. Should the matter end up in a Court or Tribunal, employers should remind employees that if they are feeling scared or intimidated that many Courts and Tribunals have facilities to allow individuals to appear by video link, telephone or if permitted, by way of an affidavit.

There is no doubt that this is a challenging situation for employers and employees confronted with these types of matters – however this case demonstrates the “worst case” for an employer and indeed, the other employees involved in the complaint as the dismissed worker is now reinstated to his previous position with the employer to work with those same colleagues.

 

Similar articles

Prevention is better than a cure

Planning end of year work celebrations

As the end of another year approaches, employers are understandingly planning a well-earned opportunity for employees to celebrate the year that has been.

Read more...

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.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission upholds dismissal of an employee who misused a company coffee account

Caffeine Hit

Financial misconduct committed by an employee can fundamentally damage the trust and confidence in an employment relationship. Unfortunately, financial misconduct is a common issue for Australian businesses and if it is not dealt with promptly and effectively, there is an opportunity for further misadventure.

Read more...

FWC upholds summary dismissal of employee who refused to provide medical information confirming fitness to work

If you refuse you lose

Where there are concerns about an employee’s fitness to work, employers may rely on terms in their employment contract which require the employee to comply with the reasonable and lawful direction to undergo a medical assessment.

Read more...

QIRC rejects unfair dismissal claim due to clear evidence of misconduct

Swear by it

Employers have a responsibility to address and manage poor conduct and behaviour which may expose other workers to work health and safety risks in the workplace. Implementation of effective disciplinary processes are vital in curbing such risks that may lead to a poor workplace culture, which may in turn create psychosocial hazards.

Read more...

Third maximum term contract role not substantially similar work

Not the same

Amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) limiting the use of fixed term and maximum term contracts prohibit employers from providing employees with successive term contracts, unless an exception applies.

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