Worker had no performance issues and was fired in a meeting
A worker recently filed a dismissal claim before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), alleging that he was unreasonably terminated over a “redundancy” that was not justified.
He said he had not received any warning or notice about performance issues, which he said, made the dismissal procedurally flawed and unfair.
The worker, Michael Vonja, lodged a complaint with the FWC, arguing that he was unfairly terminated from his position at Adcon Resources Victoria Pty Ltd.
Vonja had been employed as a site foreman by Adcon since May 12, 2021. The abrupt dismissal occurred on June 30, 2023, following a phone call from the construction manager, who told him about the termination without any prior notice.
He further challenged the procedural fairness of the dismissal and questions the validity of the employer's reasons. Adcon said the dismissal was a genuine redundancy due to downsizing.
Role given to co-workers
Vonja disputed the genuineness of the redundancy, asserting that the site foreman role was still essential, especially considering ongoing projects.
In the worker’s agreement with the employer, there was a clause that outlined the necessity to have a consultation about workplace changes:
“Where the Employer proposes to change an Employee's regular roster or ordinary hours of work, the Employer must consult with the Employee(s) affected and, if required their representative, about the proposed change.”
He highlighted the lack of consultation, absence of consideration for his seniority, and the failure to explore reasonable redeployment options within Adcon's group of companies.
Vonja also said there were no disciplinary actions against him and described the sudden dismissal on June 30, 2023 as harsh.
Was there genuine redundancy?
According to the FWC, Vonja gave evidence that “there were no prior discussions or events before 30 June 2023 when, without notice, he was asked to meet with the construction manager and informed that he was immediately dismissed.”
“The reasons for the dismissal at that point was that management were not happy with the way the project had been managed. There was no discussion about redundancy, alternative positions considered, or any information given regarding the future of the project. However, Vonja gave evidence that he was informed by the construction manager that the Company would tick the box for genuine redundancy,” it said.
The FWC also found that the worker was not duly notified. “Notification of a valid reason for termination must be given to an employee protected from unfair dismissal before the decision is made to terminate their employment, in explicit, plain and clear terms,” it said.
“Vonja was not given any notification of the reason for his dismissal prior to the discussion at the impromptu meeting of 30 June 2023, where he was simply informed of the final decision to immediately dismiss him,” it added.
After considering all of these circumstances, the FWC found that the worker’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. It then ordered the employer to pay him compensation.
