Recently, an employee of an organisation at a small North Queensland town took action by bringing a case to the Fair Work Commission seeking a remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009. The employee claimed she was unfairly dismissed from her position.

The Incident Unveiled: A Closer Look

In September 2022, an incident occurred at a local pub involving the Applicant and the publican. The crux of the matter revolved around the Applicant, who happened to be wearing her employer work uniform, opening alcohol cans outside the licensed area. This led to a confrontation wherein the Applicant was perceived as intoxicated. The Applicant maintained that she left the premises upon realising the violation of alcohol policy. However, the situation escalated when the Respondent claimed that the Applicant confronted the publican still in her work uniform, and raised her voice, ultimately causing harm to the employer's reputation within the small community. A formal complaint was made and the Applicant was terminated.

The Contest of Perspectives

The Applicant countered the Respondent's version of events, asserting that she intended to address the matter privately with the Publican. However, she left when the situation escalated into a loud confrontation. The Respondent, on the other hand, received a formal complaint from the Publican, which prompted the immediate dismissal of the Applicant on September 23, 2022. The Applicant disputed her identification in the complaint and asserted that the allegations should have been verified with her directly.

The Respondent cited previous performance warnings as part of the reason for the dismissal.

Unveiling the Unfair Dismissal Case

The central focus of the case was determining the fairness of the Applicant's dismissal. The evaluation was guided by the criteria under section 387 of the Act. Key considerations included whether there was a valid reason for dismissal, adequate notification of the reason and opportunity for the Applicant to respond.

The Crucial Determinations

The Respondent contended that the Applicant's actions while wearing her work uniform outside working hours negatively impacted the business's reputation. The Applicant, however, refuted this claim, suggesting that the Publican’s behaviour was aggressive. The incident was assessed based on a three-part test for out-of-hours conduct, ultimately concluding that the Respondent had a valid reason for dismissal.

A Spotlight on the Unfair Dismissal

Despite the valid reason for dismissal, it was highlighted that the Applicant was not sufficiently notified of the grounds for dismissal nor given the opportunity to respond. The absence of a support person and prior performance warnings were also considered, albeit to a lesser extent. Considering the informality due to the business's size and HR expertise, the dismissal process was taken into account.

Fairness in the Balance

Despite the validity of the dismissal reason, the imbalance in notice and response opportunity rendered the dismissal harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Reinstatement was deemed unfeasible. Instead, compensation was awarded.

This case highlights the intricate balance between valid dismissal reasons and procedural fairness. Not only does the reason need to be valid, but the process also needs to be followed.

‍

Image Credit: Photo 157582568 © Eyeofpaul | Dreamstime.com