Resources: Blogs

Two weeks’ notice

Blogs
|

What are the requirements for notice of termination of employment?

The requirements around when notice of termination is required and how to provide that notice can be difficult for employers. An employer’s obligations with respect to notice and notice periods are specified in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

The requirements around when notice of termination is required and how to provide that notice can be difficult for employers. An employer’s obligations with respect to notice and notice periods are specified in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

Except in circumstances of serious misconduct, employers are required to provide notice of termination to employees in accordance with the National Employment Standards contained in the FW Act, the employee’s contract of employment and any relevant industrial instrument, such as a modern award or enterprise agreement.

Section 117 of the FW Act provides that an employer is to give an employee written notice of the specific day of termination meaning the date the employment relationship ends. The date of the termination letter (written notice) must reflect the actual date the notice is given.

Notice of termination of employment may be given to an employee by delivering it personally (by hand), or by leaving or sending the notice to an employee’s last known address (ideally, by registered post).

The concept of giving notice may seem simple, but the complexities of the employment relationship can often challenge these seemingly straightforward processes.

For example, in Duggan v Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board [2017] FWC 1197, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) had to determine how and when the employer provided notice of termination of employment to the employee.

Mr Duggan commenced employment with Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (the Board) on 9 February 2016 as a recruit fire fighter. At the end of April 2016, the Board discovered that adverse findings had been made against Mr Duggan in relation to his former career as an osteopath. The matter escalated and the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia notified the Board of a dispute under the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, United Firefighters Union Of Australia, Operational Staff Agreement 2010 (the Agreement).

On 24 May 2016, the Board advised Mr Duggan that it had decided to terminate his employment but the termination would not be implemented until, in accordance with the Agreement, the dispute between the parties had been resolved. The dispute was finally resolved on 10 November 2016, following the decision of the Full Bench of the FWC. On the same date, Mr Duggan was advised that his employment would be terminated with immediate effect and that he would be paid one week in lieu of notice.

Mr Duggan subsequently lodged an Unfair Dismissal Application. The Board argued that Mr Duggan was not entitled to make a claim for unfair dismissal. The Board submitted that at the time Mr Duggan was given notice of his termination of employment (24 May 2016), he was within the minimum employment period.

Mr Duggan submitted that because the letter of 24 May 2016 did not state the specific date when his employment would be terminated, it did not comply with section 117 of the FW Act. However, Mr Duggan stated that the letter of 10 November 2016 was a valid notice and that this letter was given to him outside of the six month minimum employment period.

The FWC held that section 117 appears to require a high level of specificity and “requires that the employee who receives the notice knows at the time the employee receives the notice the actual day of termination.” In Commissioner Ryan’s view, the letter of 24 May 2016 did not meet the requirements of section 117 as it did not state the day (including date) of termination.

It was determined that Mr Duggan was given notice of termination of his employment on 10 November 2016, nine months after the commencement of his employment and outside of the minimum employment period. Accordingly, Mr Duggan had access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction.

Failure to comply with the notice requirements may have unintended consequences for employers – such as employees gaining access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, as was the case with Mr Duggan. Further, as noted in Commissioner Ryan’s decision, employers are reminded that section 117 is a civil penalty provision. This means that if an employer fails to comply with section 117 they may be subject to penalties ordered by a court for failing to provide the correct notice and in the correct form.

 

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...

Full Federal Court rejects employers bid to quash decision which found employees were not genuinely redundant

Where does it end?

Section 389(2) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides that a dismissal will not be a case of “genuine redundancy” if it “would have been reasonable in all of the circumstances” for the employee to be redeployed within the employer’s enterprise or the enterprise of an associated entity.

Read more...

Bullying prosecution leads to conviction and fine for company and its director

I knew you were trouble

Under work health and safety legislation, persons conducting a business or undertaking have duties to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable the health and safety of workers in the workplace. It is also accepted that workplace bullying is a risk to health and safety of workers which needs to be managed as any other health and safety risk.

Read more...

Victoria records first workplace manslaughter conviction

Various Australian jurisdictions have been slowly introducing an offence of industrial manslaughter, dealing with workplace fatalities that arise as a result of negligent conduct by a person conducting a business or undertaking or its officers.

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.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.