Employer learns costly lessons about proper dismissal procedures amid financial stress
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker argued she was dismissed through an email while on medical leave. The dismissal occurred without any prior consultation or warning about her position being at risk.
The worker, who had been employed for 19 months in an administrative role, claimed the dismissal lacked proper basis and fair process.
Her employer, a small business in the healthcare sector, defended their actions by arguing compliance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code and citing genuine redundancy.
The case examined whether proper dismissal procedures were followed, particularly regarding consultation requirements and the obligations of small businesses when terminating employment.
The worker's employment terms included working from home arrangements due to her psychological condition, which the employer was aware of when hiring her. She had secured the position through prior contact with the managing manager, who knew about her condition.
On 8 July 2024, while on medical leave due to an eye injury, she learned of her dismissal through her supervisor. A termination email had been sent at 6:44 AM that day, which she couldn't access due to her condition. Later, she discovered some staff had been incorrectly told she had resigned on 5 July 2024.
The employer, despite claiming they had discussed redundancy possibilities in one-on-one meetings, couldn't provide evidence of these discussions. Their supervisor, who allegedly conducted these meetings, was notably absent from the proceedings.
The employer had fewer than 15 employees, qualifying as a small business. However, the Commission found significant issues with their Small Business Fair Dismissal Code Checklist, completed two days after the dismissal.
The Commissioner stated in the decision: "There was no consultation with [the worker] before [the employer] made the decision to terminate her employment. As a consequence, she had no warning that her employment was in jeopardy."
The employer's managing manager completed a checklist claiming consultation had occurred, but the Commissioner found: "I do not consider that the company did anything to comply."
The Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020 required specific consultation processes for major workplace changes.
While the employer presented evidence of financial difficulties, including $133,000 in debts and decreased referral volumes, they failed to demonstrate any proper redundancy selection process.
The Commissioner noted: "[The employer] appears to have ignored, or been unaware of, its obligations under the Award to consult with [the worker] before she was informed of her dismissal and it taking effect."
The decision highlighted that the worker "was denied the opportunity to question why [the employer] had selected her position and not another for redundancy."
The Commission found the dismissal was both unreasonable and harsh, noting: "I also find that the dismissal was harsh in its consequences, having regard to [the worker's] personal circumstances. It involved the loss of a full-time, work from home position, which [the worker's] psychological condition requires."
While the worker sought reinstatement, the Commission determined this wasn't appropriate, stating: "I consider that the restoration of the employment relationship between [the worker] and [the employer] is unworkable or not feasible."
The Commission ordered compensation of $8,025 plus superannuation, to be paid by 17 January 2025, after considering the worker's period of employment, her efforts to find new work, and the employer's financial position.
