Case argues employee was denied 'opportunity to be heard'
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case of an employee who argued she was unfairly dismissed because of two negative Google reviews received by the business. Before the employment termination, the employee claimed she was not given a chance to address the allegations against her, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) said in a news release.
The Office Manager said the employee’s colleagues did not want to attend the workplace or deal with the employee due to her “rudeness.”
“The Office Manager initially gave the employee a verbal warning, followed by an ‘Employee Warning Notice’ a week later in May 2021,” the VCCI said.
“The Manager claimed it was in relation to the employee’s ‘disrespect’ towards other employees but failed to provide any further evidence and did not allow the employee to address these accusations,” it added.
Moreover, the Office Manager decided to terminate the employee due to an event of “serious harassment” against another employee, which the manager claimed to witness, the VCCI said.
As an additional defence against the employee’s unfair dismissal claim, the business further argued that it “reviewed two negative Google reviews about the employee,” but according to records, the issue was not clarified nor followed up with the author of the reviews.
“In considering this incident along with two negative Google reviews and interactions with other staff working, the Office Manager suggested to the Managing Director that the employee should be fired,” the VCCI said.
Following the incidents, the employee received two different termination letters from the Office Manager on 20 June and 13 August 2021, according to the VCCI.
After receiving the first termination letter, “the employee called the Managing Director, who refused to explain why she was terminated and eventually hung up,” the Chamber added.
Meanwhile, the same report revealed the second termination letter was different from the original one because the latest letter stated that the employee had disagreements with customers, received negative Google reviews, and demonstrated unacceptable behaviour in the workplace.
“She had not received any warnings that her employment was at risk due to any conduct or performance concerns and was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against her before her termination,” the VCCI said.
The Commission heard the employee’s case and said she was unfairly dismissed as there were no valid reasons for her employment termination.
“It was found that in the first Google review, the employee had not spoken to that specific customer,” the VCCI said. “In the second Google review, the employee did speak to the customer who was unhappy she couldn’t receive immediate service which was outside the employee’s control.”
Additionally, VCCI’s report stated that the FWC found the employee was denied a fair procedure because she was not provided with the opportunity to provide clarity regarding the negative Google reviews.
“She had not received any warning in relation to her conduct nor had she been told that her employment was at risk of dismissal,” VCCI said.
The Chamber said that the case serves as a warning for employers to afford their employees procedural fairness and ensure a logical reason for dismissal.
“An employee should have the opportunity to respond and should be aware if their employment is at risk,” the VCCI said.
