Doctors Boss fined over $50,000 for threatening worker

The fact that an employer is a small business, that is having fewer than 15 employees, does not stop significant penalties being imposed upon it for proven breaches of the Fair Work Act.

Whatever size its business, an employer, must comply with the law.

This much is plain from the decision in FWO v Windaroo Medical Surgery Pty Ltd & Others (No 2) [2016] FCCA 2505.

In this case the Federal Circuit Court awarded penalties totalling $51,480 against the employer and two managers, who had been involved in breaches of the Act.

The employer threatened an employee doctor not to complain to the Fair Work Ombudsman about non-payment of his salary.

The doctor resigned and left Australia but the Fair Work Ombudsman took action not only to recover amounts owing to the doctor but also to ensure that employers understand that breaches of the Act have consequences.

The decision is a clear signal that employers and their managers, whatever their size, can expect stiff treatment for infringing a workers rights.

There are strong protections in the Fair Work Act to ensure that workers are not subjected to adverse action.  Employers should make sure they get legal advice from a workplace relations specialist before acting hastily. Equally workers who believe they have been treated unfairly should act quickly to protect their rights. Generally all rights to take action under the Act for unfair or unlawful dismissal must be done within 21 days of being sacked.

Read More»

Can an employer change an employee's work roster?

Being penalised for unpredictability is not necessarily adverse action.

CFMEU v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 76 demonstrates that it is not unlawful for an employer to change an employee’s work roster where there is unpredictability in the employee maintaining the original roster even where that unpredictability arises from the employee taking carer’s or annual leave.

Read More»

Stress, shock and miscalculation all insufficient grounds for extension of time at the Fair Work Commission

The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has upheld a decision by Commissioner Gregory preventing an employee with a general protections claim against his former employer from filing his application one day late.

Section 366 of the Fair Work Act requires an employee to file a general protections application at the Commission within 21 days after the dismissal took effect.  This also applies to applications for unfair dismissal remedy (see section 394).

The term “dismissal taking effect” can be difficult to interpret and calculate from - especially when employers provide a notice period, or payments in lieu. 

The Act allows the Commission to grant a dismissed employee an extension of time to file an application if satisfied that “exceptional circumstances” exist, taking account of:
-   the reason for the delay,
-   when the employee first became aware of the dismissal,
-   if the dismissal was disputed,
-   any prejudice to the employer caused by the delay,
-   the merits of the application; and
-   fairness between the employee and others in their situation
   (see sections 366(2) and 394(3)).

Exceptional circumstances are explained as circumstances that are “out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon.” (Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd (2011) 203 IR 1)

In Hart [2014] FWCFB 3270, Mr Hart was dismissed from his employment as a Sales Manager on 16 January 2014.  He filed a general protections application on 7 February 2014, one day after the expiration of the 21 day period.

In the extension of time application before Commissioner Gregory, Mr Hart gave evidence that he was on annual leave at the time of the dismissal, was in a state of shock and extreme stress and had miscalculated the 21 day period.

However, Mr Hart also admitted that shortly after the dismissal he had made enquiries with the Commission regarding avenues of redress, had been “considering his options” and that in fact “nothing” had prevented him from filing his application.

Commissioner Gregory expressed sympathy for Mr Hart but dismissed his application for an extension of time, ultimately because a stressed employee considering his options and miscalculating the time period was not exceptional, but “circumstances routinely encountered by the Commission” at [16].

Mr Hart appealed to the Full Bench of the Commission, which upheld Commissioner Gregory’s decision.

This is another example of the Commission strictly enforcing the time limits prescribed by the Act. 

Lessons to be learnt:

-  calculate the time period including the day of the dismissal;
-  filing a simple application is better than missing the deadline - you can always seek leave to     amend later;
- applications for extension of time require exceptional circumstances; and
-  circumstances that are stressful and unhappy for a dismissed employee are not necessarily exceptional.


Emma Pollett-Sutton
Lawyer

Anyone seeking advice about workplace laws should contact Nevett Ford Melbourne Lawyers on 03 9614 7111.

Read More»

More on social medial and out of hours activity

Recently I wrote about social media and how what employees do with them after hours can affect employment.

The decision in Pearson v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2014]FWC 446 confirms that where an employer’s reputation or the security of its enterprise are at stake, this is certainly true.

Having learnt its lesson from the experience with Mr Stutsel, see [2011] FWA 944 and [2012] FWAFB 7097, Linfox implemented a social media policy and gave its employees training in it.

Mr Pearson was dismissed for his failure over time to comply with a number of Linfox policies and for refusing to sign an acknowledgement that he had read and understood the newly implemented social media policy.

In his evidence at hearing, Mr Pearson said that he had refused to sign the social media policy because it was intended to apply out of hours and “Linfox do not pay me or control my life outside of my working hours, they cannot tell me what to do or say outside of work, that is basic human rights (sic) on freedom of speech.”

In addressing the social media policy acknowledgement issue as a valid reason for Mr Pearson’s dismissal, Commissioner Gregory said that there is little point in having a policy that prevents employees from damaging their employer’s reputation and releasing their confidential information at work that leaves them free to do so out of hours.  He accepted that there were many instances where employers cannot lawfully restrict or regulate employee’s activities outside work but said that for a social media policy to operate effectively it had to reach beyond work hours.

So despite what Mr Pearson may have thought, his freedom of speech and action outside work hours was not absolute.

Commissioner Gregory observed that Linfox was not actually asking Mr Pearson to abide by the social media policy but only to acknowledge that he had read and understood it.  All the same, Linfox would expect its employees to abide by the policy and for them to recognise that breach of the policy can have consequences for ongoing employment.

Mr Pearson does not appear to have understood this. 

In any event, as Mr Pearson had breached other workplace policies relating to notification of absences, unauthorised mobile phone usage and safety procedures, it is likely he would still have been dismissed even if he had not taken a principled, but misguided, stance on his employer’s social media policy.

So employees are on notice that out of hours social media use that damages an employer’s reputation or discloses its confidential information can lead to a dismissal being upheld as valid.

Greg Doran
Director

Anyone seeking advice about workplace laws should contact Nevett Ford Melbourne Lawyers on 03 9614 7111.

 

Read More»

Performance not pursuit of workpalce rights real reason for ambo's dismissal

 In a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Short v Ambulance Victoria [2014] FCA 3) (15 January 2014) a claim by a paramedic that he was dismissed because he vigorously exercised his workplace rights by making inquiries and/or complaints about his employment was rejected.

The Court found that the paramedic’s dismissal had nothing to do with the exercise of workplace rights but was clearly due to this man’s behaviour.

The paramedic was on a warning for unacceptable behaviour as a result of the findings of an external inquiry into complaints the paramedic himself had made against management.

 

The Court described the behaviour that precipitated the dismissal as a “dummy spit” and an unprovoked and unreasonable personal attack on a manager.  The case is a reminder to all employers to ensure that warnings of inappropriate behaviour are documented and that the reasons for termination are clearly set out in all contemporaneous documents.  Ambulance Victoria was vindicated in its decision to dismiss this man.

 

This case is a good example of how proper process and procedures being followed will withstand the scrutiny of a Court when challenged.

All employers need to act carefully when dismissing employees and go through proper processes.  In this case the employee’s aggressive behaviour after having been warned was considered by the Court to be beyond pale notwithstanding 12 years of employment.

Philip Brewin
Accredited Workplace Relations Specialist

Anyone seeking advice about workplace laws should contact Nevett Ford Melbourne Lawyers on 03 9614 7111.

 

Read More»