Manager did not want to use 'WhatsApp' and became 'difficult' on Zoom
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has recently sided with an employer who dismissed one of its managers due to poor communication skills and inability to support his team members. The staff collectively said they “had lost confidence in [the manager’s] ability.”
In this case, the FWC determined if the employer’s reasons were reasonable when it terminated its full-time estimating manager who had completed his probationary period.
The manager said he “consistently received” positive feedback from senior management and clients, but towards the end of August last year, the employer notified him of his dismissal effective in September.
The manager said the dismissal was unfair since he was not notified of any valid reason for his termination. Thus, he did not have any opportunity to respond.
The employer said he was dismissed due to “poor communication and inability to support team members.” It also said that the manager “would not use [the employer’s] choice of quick internal communication, ‘WhatsApp’ which made internal communications difficult, despite the additional use of email communication.”
It also said that the manager “became difficult” about joining Zoom meetings for company communication, “especially during early 2021 lockdowns and when he was working from home.”
When it came to the manager’s workplace behaviour, one of the employees complained that she “had to develop a certain way to approach” the manager. She said she had “to approach his desk because she would not get answers in a timely manner if she were to call or email [him].”
The employer also filed other employees' statements alleging concerns with the manager’s performance, including complaints about “slow responses for sales quotations, lack of communication and failure to meet deadlines.”
“The quotes couldn’t be provided in real time like the competitors did, and this resulted in sales being affected,” the report said.
The employer also submitted meetings with the manager to discuss “concerns about his performance” and later on, it issued a formal warning that “he must improve.”
The manager said that the decision to dismiss him “had clearly already been made prior” to the employer’s scheduled meetings with him and “before he had the opportunity to put his case why he should not be dismissed.”
The decision
The FWC said that the manager’s role went beyond performing estimates. He had managerial responsibilities, including supervising more junior staff.
“The [manager] was either unable or unwilling to perform the specific supervisory functions that the role he was engaged to perform entailed, and this was impacting on the efficiency and profitability of [his employer],” the FWC said.
It noted that the employer’s senior management received a series of complaints from staff about his performance and “interpersonal skills” and his failure to train more junior staff and meet deadlines.
The FWC said that the manager did not demonstrate “necessary communication skills” to “adequately fulfil his managerial responsibilities” and that employer had a valid reason to dismiss him.
It said that the employer formally warned him, and he had an opportunity to respond to concerns raised by management about his performance.
Thus, the FWC said the dismissal was not unfair nor unjust. The decision was handed down on 9 March.
