Says employer had unfair expectations, external factors affected her ability to perform effectively
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker challenged her termination, arguing that unreasonable performance standards and external factors affected her ability to meet her employer's expectations.
The worker also claimed she was subjected to unfair documentation practices leading up to her dismissal.
The dispute raised important questions about performance management, reasonable workload expectations, and what constitutes valid grounds for termination in the context of unsatisfactory performance.
The HR administrator started her role in June 2023 at a family-owned farming business. Her core duties included managing recruitment processes, coordinating new employee inductions, and maintaining the organisation's HR information system. She worked as part of a five-member HR team.
A key part of her role involved using a software system called Dynamics to track recruitment activities. She needed to create new recruitment projects for vacant positions, upload applications from SEEK.com, and keep detailed records of the recruitment process.
The acting HR manager, who had performed the same role before the worker's appointment, said he first noticed issues in January 2024 when required information wasn't being entered into Dynamics.
Concerns about missing data and incomplete records led to several emails from management. On 15 February 2024, the then-HR manager wrote to the worker:
"I have been noticing that there are crucial data missing in Dynamics data base... This information is crucial for our audit readiness, and any delay is no longer permissible."
By March 2024, the managing director raised additional concerns about unread job applications. The acting HR manager then sent multiple follow-up emails about missing recruitment data and incomplete project folders.
After these ongoing issues, management issued a formal warning letter on 23 April 2024. The letter outlined specific problems with recruitment data management and system updates.
When presented with the warning, the worker reportedly only said "OK, is that all?"
The employer monitored the situation between April and June 2024 but saw no significant improvement. This led to the worker's dismissal on 27 June 2024.
Notably, after receiving her termination letter, the worker began deleting files and tearing up papers, despite being directed not to do so.
The worker argued that several factors affected her ability to perform her duties effectively. She said she faced an unusually high workload due to harvest season preparations and audit requirements.
She also pointed to technical issues with the workflow system and said that inductions regularly took full days rather than the allocated two hours.
She disagreed with the employer's version of events, saying she had no memory of a February meeting mentioned in the warning letter.
She claimed the employer had "started a campaign of sending emails that they could use to justify the written warning."
In assessing the case, the Commission found the performance expectations were reasonable. The Commissioner stated:
"I do not consider there is a basis for finding that the expectations were unreasonable in the circumstances, given the contents of the position description and the evidence of [the acting HR manager] that he had previously performed the role himself to the standard required."
The Commission did not accept the worker's claims about targeted emails, noting:
"I reject [the worker's] assertion that she was subjected to a campaign of emails that were used for the purpose of justifying a written warning and her subsequent dismissal."
The final decision emphasised that proper procedures were followed:
"Having fully considered all the evidence, I accept that [the worker's] work performance fell short of [the employer's] expectations, and those expectations were not unreasonable."
