Resources: Blog

FWC says unacceptable comment in the workplace didn’t warrant dismissal

Blog
|

Crime and Punishment

Managing workplace behaviour is a balancing act for employers and HR. Some workplace policies provide examples of unacceptable behaviour and how to deal with it, but these policies cannot hope to address all types of behaviour or prescribe every appropriate redress. Employers need to exercise some judgment when they become aware of inappropriate behaviour and consider carefully whether an employee’s conduct will warrant disciplinary action and, if so, what type.

Managing workplace behaviour is a balancing act for employers and HR. Some workplace policies provide examples of unacceptable behaviour and how to deal with it, but these policies cannot hope to address all types of behaviour or prescribe every appropriate redress. Employers need to exercise some judgment when they become aware of inappropriate behaviour and consider carefully whether an employee’s conduct will warrant disciplinary action and, if so, what type.

In a recent case before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) (Phillip Coffey v QBar Darwin Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 4312), Commissioner Bissett found an employer’s decision to stop giving shifts to a casual employee amounted to termination, and that termination was not an appropriate response to the employee’s conduct.

Mr Coffey (the Employee) was a casual café supervisor at QBar Darwin Pty Ltd (the Employer). He alleged he had been unfairly dismissed when his Employer stopped giving him shifts citing poor business conditions and a strained work environment.

Prior to the Employee’s dismissal he had made complaints to the café owner that the manager, who was of Estonian heritage, was hiring only Estonian staff and speaking to those employees in Estonian, to the exclusion of everyone else. When the café owner asked the manager about this, she denied the claim and stated that she was hiring purely on merit.

The Employee had also conducted his own “investigation” which included talking to ex-employees and customers about whether the cultural exclusion was apparent in the café.

On one occasion, the Employee had said “see ya” to the manager as she was leaving. The manager was talking to other Estonian employees at the time and did not reply. The Employee then said to his work colleague “she can be a racist b*tch”. This comment was overheard by a friend of the manager and relayed to her.

Following the incident, the café owner attempted to resolve the tensions by having both employees attend a meeting, however the Employee refused to do. Eventually, the Employer decided to stop giving him shifts.

During the FWC proceedings, the Employee admitted to making the comment and understood that it was not one that he should have made. He claimed he was only expressing an opinion and he was being made out to be the “nasty one”.

Commissioner Bissett found the Employee’s comment about his manager and his discussion of workplace issues with customers were the most serious of his actions. However, even though they were “unacceptable” and could have done serious damage to the manager’s reputation, there was no evidence to say that they actually did damage her reputation. The Employee’s actions were, at best, inappropriate and unprofessional.

Commissioner Bissett acknowledged that the dismissal may have been borne out of frustration with the Employee’s refusal to co-operate, but “[w]hilst Mr Coffey contributed to this frustration such a matter should be properly managed in the first instance before dismissal might be justified.”

Commissioner Bissett found the dismissal to be unfair.

 

Remember...

The punishment should always fit the crime, this is the essence of substantive fairness.

Employers should consider the full circumstances of an issue and the context in which an employee’s conduct has arisen when contemplating disciplinary action. There are a range of options that might be appropriate before termination is imposed, such as counselling, performance management and the issuing of warnings. Termination should be the last resort.

Lastly, in this case, the Employee had argued that “everyone swears” in the workplace and he was only being made out to be the “nasty one”. This type of argument should be a reminder to employers to regularly re-visit workplace policies and re-train employees on unacceptable workplace behaviour to avoid this type of defence from dismissed employees.

 

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

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

Read more...

Commission rejects constructive dismissal claim after finding performance review process did not force employee to resign

Full force denied

For an employee to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, they must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. In some instances, a resignation can be a “dismissal”, when an employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s conduct. This is referred to as a “constructive dismissal”.

Read more...

FWC rejects Applicants’ claim to access investigation documents

Privileged

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has a broad power under section 590 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) to “inform itself in relation to any manner before it in such manner as it considers appropriate”. Under this general power, the FWC may inform itself by requiring the production of documents or records to the FWC (such as all documents or records relating to a dismissal process).

Read more...

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

Read more...

The importance of WHS refresher training

Not a “one and done” thing

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.

Read more...

Casual Terms Award Review 2021

NEWS UPDATE

In March 2021, the casual employment amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) introduced a new statutory definition of “casual employee” and an entitlement to casual conversion as one of the National Employment Standards (NES).

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.