Did you know that as an employer, you can be held responsible for your workers even when they are not working?

 

The Fair Work Commission recently heard a case in which three employees sought an order to stop bullying at their workplace. Their employer, DP World Maritime Limited, sought to strike out their application on the basis that the bullying behaviour took place when the employees were not ‘at work’.

Numerous employees had engaged in telephone calls and Facebook messages concerning their colleagues’ union memberships and made derogatory comments to and about them. These exchanges took place both during and outside of office hours in several locations both in and outside of the workplace.

 

The Commission had to consider the definition of the expression ‘while the worker is at work’ and what it encompassed. The Commission concluded that the concept of being ‘at work’ includes instances in which the employee is performing work and also when they are engaged in any other activity permitted by their employer, such as taking a meal break. The meaning is not confined to the workplace and includes any location or time of day when they are performing work. 

 

In this case, the Full Bench held that the behaviour took place while the employees were ‘at work’ leaving their employer at risk of liability for their actions.

 

If allegations of bullying have been made in your business, contact Nevett Ford Melbourne on (03) 9614 7111 and ask to speak to one of our workplace relations team about protecting yourself from legal action.

 

Read More»

Pitfalls of lack of process

Earlier this year, two cases heard in the Fair Work Commission demonstrated what can occur when proper process is not followed relating to termination of employment

 

In Lyberopoulos v Reidwell Investments BT Pty Ltd T/A Coco Cubano Blacktown [2015] FWC 4256, the employee was employed for less than seven months before she was summarily dismissed.  

 

The employer claimed she failed to comply with their procedures and did not follow directions. The parties contested the facts of the case and Senior Deputy President Drake had to determine whom to believe. She accepted the employee’s evidence over the employer’s because the employer did not seem to be a credible or reliable witness.

 

The Commission found that the employee was not appropriately warned that her actions may lead to the termination of her employment and the reasons for her dismissal were therefore harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

 

As the employee was unable to obtain alternative employment until 24 weeks and three days following the termination of her employment, Deputy Senior President Drake ordered that the employer pay compensation to the value of 24 weeks and three days’ worth of the employee’s salary, being $36,267.

 

In Balatti v Aussie Supplements Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 4674 the employee had been working as a sales manager for three years when he received a telephone call from his employer alleging he was being investigated for the sale of illegal drugs whilst at work. The employee was advised he would be dismissed from his employment and, several days later, received a letter confirming his immediate dismissal. The employer then failed to pay the employee’s accrued statutory entitlements upon termination, such as annual leave, and failed to participate in a conciliation conference and hearing before the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Cambridge found the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable because the employer advised the employee of his termination by telephone and the letter of dismissal did not provide any reasons for the dismissal. As a consequence, the employer was ordered to pay $17,880.

 

Under section 117 of the Fair Work Act 2009 an employer is obliged to provide notice of termination in writing.  But as the decision in Clark v Framlingham Aboriginal Trust [2012] FWA 7103 shows, the failure to provide written notice does not make a termination ineffective if the employee has been notified (by whatever means) that his employment has been terminated.

 

Melita Demirova

Read More»

Workplace Bullying - Can a business be responsible for bullying outside of work hours?

The Fair Work Commission recently heard a case in which three employees sought an order to stop bullying at their workplace. Their employer, DP World Maritime Limited, sought to strike out their application on the basis that the bullying behaviour took place when the employees were not ‘at work’.

Numerous employees had engaged in telephone calls and Facebook messages concerning their colleagues’ union memberships and made derogatory comments to and about them. These exchanges took place both during and outside of office hours in several locations both in and outside of the workplace.

The Commission had to consider the definition of the expression ‘while the worker is at work’ and what it encompassed. The Commission concluded that the concept of being ‘at work’ includes instances in which the employee is performing work and also when they are engaged in any other activity permitted by their employer, such as taking a meal break. The meaning is not confined to the workplace and includes any location or time of day when they are performing work. 

In this case, the Full Bench held that the behaviour took place while the employees were ‘at work’ leaving their employer at risk of liability for their actions.

If allegations of bullying have been made in your business, contact Nevett Ford Melbourne on (03) 9614 7111 and ask to speak to one of our workplace relations team about protecting yourself from legal action.

Read More»