Resources: Blogs

Foreign Language

Blogs
|

Unfairly dismissed 457 visa employee awarded maximum compensation

Employees who are employed on working visas (for example subclass 457 or 417 visas) are able to make applications for unfair dismissal and have their case heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). An employer who fails to afford procedural fairness to a working visa employee can still find themselves in trouble in the FWC as demonstrated in GS v Dairy Kosher Catering Pty Ltd T/A Milk n Honey [2016] FWC 5284.

Employers are obligated to comply with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) when employing employees in Australia – including providing the minimum terms and conditions of employment as prescribed by the FW Act and an applicable modern award (if any) or enterprise agreement.

Employees who are employed on working visas (for example subclass 457 or 417 visas) are able to make applications for unfair dismissal and have their case heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). An employer who fails to afford procedural fairness to a working visa employee can still find themselves in trouble in the FWC as demonstrated in GS v Dairy Kosher Catering Pty Ltd T/A Milk n Honey [2016] FWC 5284.

The Employee was sponsored by the Employer on a subclass 457 visa and worked as a cook from 11 March 2014. In March 2016, the Employee was advised by the Employer that the business had been sold and that the new owners would not be able to sponsor him. The Employee was told that he had to finish up from the business and to contact the Employer’s accountant regarding his unpaid entitlements and wages. The Employee lodged an unfair dismissal application the day after the termination of his employment.

Commissioner Cirkovic firstly held that the Employee had access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction and went on to determine whether the termination of employment was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Commissioner Cirkovic held that there was not a valid reason for the termination of employment and further the Employee was not notified of the reason for the termination nor was he given an opportunity to respond.

Importantly, she had regard to the Employee’s visa status noting that this made the termination of employment and the visa sponsorship withdrawal “particularly harsh”. Commissioner Cirkovic noted that the Employee was one week away from eligibility to apply for permanent residency, did not have access to social security payments (such as Centrelink) and could be deported if he didn’t find another employer to sponsor him.

For these reasons, Commissioner Cirkovic was satisfied that the termination of the Employee’s employment was unfair and that an order for monetary compensation should be made. In this regard, Commissioner Cirkovic held that given that the Employee’s sponsorship ended on 11 March 2018, he would have been employed until then. It was considered that it was unlikely that the sale of the business would have affected his employment as the business would have required the Employee’s skills.

Given that the Employee would have received total of $111,480.77 for his employment until 11 March 2018, Commissioner Cirkovic made orders for the Employer to pay the Employee the statutory maximum compensation (26 weeks pay) of $27,500.00.

This case demonstrates the potential risks to employers who may assume that the visa status of employees does not mean that compliance with Australian’s industrial legislation is necessary. Employers are reminded that as a matter of best practice, procedural fairness should be afforded to all employees when consideration is being given to termination of employment – regardless of their residency status.

 

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.