Resources: Blog

Dismissed employee’s illnesses not enough to defer performance management processes

Blog
|

PIPped at the post

A failure to take into consideration an employee’s health concerns during a performance management or disciplinary process may not only place an employee’s health at further risk but can also increase an employer’s exposure to claims under employment, workers compensation, bullying or discrimination laws.

Managing underperformance and engaging in performance management processes can be difficult and stressful for both employees and their managers.

It is not uncommon for employees who are required to participate in a performance management process to raise concerns about the impacts of the process on their health (often relating to anxiety or stress). When these issues are raised, employers find themselves in a difficult position – how to press on with managing underperformance without causing any further deterioration to an employee’s health.

In such difficult situations, it is important for employers to carefully consider the health concerns raised by the employee and their effect, if any, on the employee’s capacity for work. For instance, does the employee’s illness or injury prevent them from continuing to participate in the performance management process or from attending work at all? Should any performance management or disciplinary processes be postponed until the employee receives treatment? Is further information required about the employee’s condition?

These questions were considered in Andrew Demosthenous v Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 6945 – an unfair dismissal decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that was recently upheld on appeal to the Full Bench.

In this matter, the FWC heard an application by a Customer Projects Officer who claimed that that his dismissal in June 2017 was unfair. After 19 years of service, the employee was dismissed for poor performance. He claimed that the dismissal was unfair because his employer had failed to postpone or delay its performance management processes, or direct him to take leave, after he told them that he was suffering from several health issues during the performance management process.

The employer had commenced informal performance management in September 2015 and, after seeing no improvement, placed the employee on three consecutive formal Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs). Shortly after the commencement of the second PIP, the employee raised concerns about the timing of the PIP and advised that he was suffering from several health issues including diabetes, extremely low iron levels as well as stress, headaches and insomnia as a result of the PIPs.

At numerous performance review meetings after the employee shared this information, the employer invited the employee to provide more detail about his health issues and repeatedly asked him if there was anything more they could do to assist him to improve his performance. The employer had also encouraged the employee to seek medical advice if he felt it was necessary to do so. The employee’s response was that he was stressed and simply needed to complete the backlog of work in the PIPs before taking a break to relieve the pressure.

By the end of the third PIP, the employee had still not completed the tasks in the PIP (most of which had been outstanding since September 2015) and accordingly, the employer terminated his employment.

The FWC rejected the employee’s arguments that his employer should have directed him to take leave or postponed the performance management process and stated that the employer was under no obligation to do so in circumstances where:

  • the process had been ongoing for almost two years;
  • reasonable inquiries had been made about the employee’s health condition on numerous occasions; and
  • the employee had simply been unwilling to provide the employer with any further detail, including how his health concerns affected his ability to work or participate in the performance management process.

The FWC balanced the employee’s age and length of service against the genuine, lengthy and thorough performance review process and confirmed that termination of his employment was not a disproportionate response. The dismissal was therefore upheld.

The Full Bench later rejected the employee’s application for leave to appeal the decision on the basis that the employee had not been able to establish any arguable case of error. Instead, the Full Bench reiterated the validity of the dismissal, which had been preceded by a lengthy and thorough performance improvement process and included numerous opportunities for the employee to meet the employer’s expectations.

Lessons for employers

It is important that employers approach these situations with caution. A failure to take into consideration an employee’s health concerns during a performance management or disciplinary process may not only place an employee’s health at further risk but can also increase an employer’s exposure to claims under employment, workers compensation, bullying or discrimination laws.

Whilst each case will turn on its own facts, this recent decision from the FWC (as upheld by the Full Bench) has shown support for the position that employers who engage in genuine and thorough processes and make reasonable attempts to take into consideration any health concerns raised by an employee can confidently reduce their exposure to litigation if the employment relationship does eventually come to an end.

 

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 upholds objection to constructive dismissal claim

Construction zone

In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.

Read more...

Termination of employment letters

In your letter

A termination of employment letter serves a significant purpose in bringing the employment relationship to an end.

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation September 2020

The Queensland Government recently passed legislation amending the Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) to criminalise wage theft by employers in Queensland.‍The Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Wage Theft) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) was introduced to the Queensland Parliament in response to a Report released in 2018 by the Queensland Parliamentary Education, Employment and Small Business Committee following an inquiry into wage theft in Queensland. The Report identified critical issues in wage theft as well as deliberate action taken by employers to frustrate employees’ attempts to recover entitlements.

Read more...

FWC upholds objection to constructive dismissal claim

Construction zone

In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.

Read more...

Court penalises accountant for involvement in employer’s failure to keep employee records

Put your records on

The Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) impose a number of obligations on employers with respect to the making and keeping of employee records and pay slips.

Read more...

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that 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 Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.