Teacher also failed to attend meetings and follow instructions, finds IRC
The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (IRC NSW) dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving an employee dismissed for failing to attend meetings and refusing to collaborate effectively with colleagues.
The worker believed her dismissal was simply based on “arbitrary and unfair” disciplinary actions. The employer, however, argued that the employee’s behavior in the workplace involved a series of misconducts prompting the termination of employment.
The worker started working as an Itinerant Teacher, Support-Hearing (ITSH) in 2006. A year later, the employer transferred the ITSH teacher to another base school, where she was obliged to attend several schools in the region and offer itinerant hearing support.
However, in 2019 and 2020, the employer claimed that the employee violated her principal’s written directions to “comply with lawful directions and reasonable instructions given by a supervisor,” “work collaboratively with supervisors and other colleagues, even if you disagree with them,” and “treat colleagues with respect.”
The employer also alleged that the worker failed to engage in the Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) by not attending TIP and other meetings and refusing to sign TIP documentation, which was considered a breach of formal direction.
“The applicant [worker] failed to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction of the principal given on 14 February 2020 to adhere to professional and respectful correspondence,” the respondent claimed, according to IRC.
However, the employee said the dismissal was unjust because the formal direction to participate in a TIP was unlawful.
Furthermore, the worker argued that the employer had disobeyed its own policies concerning performance management and procedural fairness, and the reasons for dismissal were insufficient to justify the termination.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently upheld the dismissal of an employee who took unauthorised leave to tend to his family.
Terminating the worker’s employment was “not harsh, unreasonable, or unjust,” according to the IRC. It further explained that in the duration of the case, the worker had been given ample time and opportunity to change the course of events – none of which she did.
“She has also shown no remorse in respect of the tone and language used in her email correspondence and failure to turn up to meetings in accordance with reasonable and lawful directions,” said the commission.
“The allegations of the [employer] have a basis in fact, and the nature of the applicant’s sustained misconduct in refusing to follow reasonable and lawful instructions, combined with her lack of cooperation and disrespectful conduct, is inconsistent with a functional employment relationship with the respondent,” it added.
The IRC further noted that even when every worker has a right to disagree with some practices in the workplace, it saw no proper basis that the worker still has a chance to work collaboratively and effectively with the employer in the future.
