Fired on the spot? Manager slams role's 'unrealistic expectations'

The dismissal occurred during a meeting at the end of the workday, which lasted approximately 30 minutes. Notably, the managing director had made the decision to terminate the worker earlier that day without providing advance notice of the meeting or its purpose.

The worker's evidence revealed that the dismissal took place shortly after a heated argument between the managing director and his brother, another owner and director of the company. The worker's impression was that the brother "was berating" the managing director during this argument.

Reasons for dismissal and evidence

According to records, the employer claimed that the worker failed to fulfill his management responsibilities, despite receiving regular feedback. The managing director said they closely monitored the worker's performance and were aware of concerns raised by the former senior production manager.

The alleged performance issues included invoicing problems, inadequate management of work in progress, contractor controls, staff organization, and inaccurate warranty liability estimations.

However, the worker denied having any performance issues and provided evidence of the operational demands and restrictions on the performance of their role.

The worker stated that the former senior production manager "never brought up any performance issues" with him and that the invoicing issues were due to the company's in-house software system, for which no manual or specific training was provided.

The employer's evidence of the worker's performance issues lacked detail and supporting documentation. As noted by the FWC, "the employer did not bring any supporting evidence with sufficient particularity to ground its contention that the worker's performance was unsatisfactory."

The worker, on the other hand, provided evidence of the unrealistic expectations placed on his role, which was supported by the high turnover of staff in the after-sales manager position.

The worker "gave evidence that he was the fifth person to perform the role of After Sales Manager in four years."

Unfair dismissal criteria

The FWC considered the criteria set out in Section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The key findings were:

• There was no valid reason for the worker's dismissal related to their capacity or conduct. The FWC stated that "on balance, I am not persuaded that there were performance issues sufficiently serious enough to justify termination."
• The worker was not notified of the reason for dismissal prior to the event and was not given an opportunity to respond. The FWC found that "there was no procedural fairness afforded to the worker in his dismissal."
• The worker did not receive any verbal or written warnings regarding their performance. The FWC determined that "the discussions the managing director had with the worker are best characterised as regular work discussions about the work and what needed to be done on a day-to-day basis."

Based on the evidence presented and the lack of procedural fairness, the FWC found that the worker's dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable.

It said that the absence of a valid reason and the lack of procedural fairness were the primary factors in its decision.

Consequently, the FWC awarded the worker a remedy of $50,192.36, emphasising the importance of fair and just dismissal practices in the workplace.