Resources: Blog

FWC rejects claim deed was made under duress

Blog
|

A good deed goes a long way

As we have discussed in previous blogs, it is not uncommon for an employer and employee to enter into a deed of release or settlement when ending the employment relationship.

As we have discussed in previous blogs, it is not uncommon for an employer and employee to enter into a deed of release or settlement when ending the employment relationship. A deed provides assurances to both parties that the employment relationship is at an end and they can both move forward.

A major reason that deeds are so effective is that they operate as a bar to any proceedings that a party may wish to commence at a later point in time in relation to the subject matter of the deed. For example, the employment relationship or the termination of employment.

Employers must therefore ensure that deeds are entered into by the parties legitimately and that employees are given every opportunity to understand the terms and effect of the document, to minimise the risk of a court finding a deed invalid or otherwise void.

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has shown that deeds can effectively operate as a bar to proceedings as long as they have been legitimately agreed to by the parties.

In Salisbury v Sigmatek Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 2, the FWC dismissed an employee’s claim that he had signed a deed of release on termination of his employment under duress from his employer.

The employee had claimed that the deed was signed under duress because he was led to believe that the only way that he would be able to access his accrued leave and benefits would be if he signed the deed.

The FWC found that this was not the case.

In fact, the employer had provided the deed to the employee to review some 10 days prior to his intended termination date, and invited him to discuss the contents of the deed if he had any questions. The employee chose not to discuss the deed and instead signed and returned the deed within 3 days.

The FWC was satisfied that the employer did not place any pressure on the employee to sign the deed, and the employee chose instead not to meet with the employer to discuss the deed or undertake any other action to clarify his concerns prior to signing it.

Accordingly, the deed was valid and acted as a bar to the unfair dismissal proceedings commenced by the employee, and his application was dismissed.

Lessons for employers

When negotiating deeds with departing employees, it is important for employers to ensure that an employee’s rights and entitlements are clearly and properly represented to them, and that employees are given adequate time to consider any potential deed.

A failure to do so can increase the risk of an employee claiming that the deed was made under duress or coercion, or that an employer misrepresented the employee’s entitlements.

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

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...

Key Takeaways from our Webinar

Managing Workplace Behaviour: "You Get What You Tolerate"

In our August webinar, our Managing Director and Principal, Athena Koelmeyer, discussed the challenges faced by modern employers when managing workplace behaviour. In that webinar, Athena examined a number of recent unfair dismissal decisions of the Fair Work Commission which provide some good guidance for employers.

Read more...

Managing employee conduct and behaviour in the workplace

Draw the line

Managing employee conduct and behaviour can be a challenge. The question of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in the workplace will depend on a variety of factors, including the industry in which the employees work, the overall culture of the workplace and community standards at any given time.

Read more...

Court fines PCBU $60,000 for failing to re-assess the risks associated with changing site conditions

Set and forget

Persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) have a positive obligation to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others.

Read more...

Employee fails in bid to have safety-related dismissal found to be unfair

Garbage in, garbage out

A dismissed employee can lodge an unfair dismissal claim alleging that their dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Employees will often claim that the dismissal was all three: harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.

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.