Manager argues he wasn't allowed to respond before termination
A manager at a manufacturing company filed an unfair dismissal claim after being terminated for alleged misconduct.
The case, heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), examined whether the termination was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The manager contended that his dismissal occurred without a proper investigation and that the employer failed to provide a reasonable chance to respond.
The manager had been with the company for six years, primarily overseeing production and workplace safety.
The termination followed allegations of multiple breaches of company policy, including failure to follow safety protocols and inappropriate workplace conduct.
The manager disputed the claims, arguing that some of the incidents had been resolved informally and that the company had not clearly communicated the warnings.
During the hearing, the employer presented internal records to support the dismissal, asserting that the manager had been warned several times.
However, the manager argued that the termination was disproportionate and that procedural fairness had not been followed.
He added that the warnings were unclear and inconsistent, making it difficult to address the concerns raised by the employer.
The FWC examined whether the employer had followed due process, including notifying the manager of the reasons for dismissal and allowing a response. It also considered whether the decision was based on valid reasons related to conduct and performance.
In assessing the dismissal, the FWC reviewed the steps taken by the employer before terminating the manager. The commission noted that while the employer had a valid reason for dismissal, procedural fairness concerns were present.
The FWC stated, "An employer must provide a fair opportunity for an employee to respond to allegations before making a decision to terminate employment."
It also highlighted that some of the alleged breaches lacked sufficient documentation, which raised concerns about the fairness of the process.
Given the procedural failings, the FWC ruled that the dismissal was unfair. It determined that the employer had not provided an adequate opportunity for the manager to address the concerns before terminating employment.
However, the commission found that reinstatement was not appropriate due to the breakdown of the employment relationship.
As a result, the FWC ordered compensation for the manager, acknowledging the impact of the dismissal while considering his efforts to secure new employment.
