FWC: Employer should have used performance management, cites manager's 'unblemished record'
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a senior human resources manager claimed she was hastily dismissed after returning from stress-related medical leave.
The worker argued that her employer failed to provide proper support despite her unblemished seven-year service record and multiple promotions.
The case raised questions about how organisations should handle workplace conduct issues when they intersect with mental health concerns, particularly for long-serving employees in leadership positions.
At a medical research institute, the worker began as senior human resources advisor in November 2016. Through demonstrated performance, she received several promotions, ultimately becoming general manager of human resources and payroll in January 2023.
By mid-2023, the worker reported experiencing significant work-related stress, working 50-60 hours weekly. She spoke with the deputy director about these concerns, which led to the hiring of an HR operations manager in August 2023 to provide support.
Despite this additional resource, the worker's health declined. On October 11, 2023, following an incident with an HR coordinator regarding training discussions, she left work with approval and began an extended medical leave period. Medical certificates showed she was unfit for work from October 12, 2023, to January 30, 2024.
During her leave, doctors diagnosed the worker with depression, anxiety, and burnout. In January 2024, the institute's director asked for information about her condition and fitness to return to work.
Her doctor cleared her return from January 31, 2024, with one restriction - she should not exceed her contracted hours. An independent medical examination supported this limitation, expressing concerns about potential relapse if she resumed working excessive hours.
The Commission noted a crucial detail about the October incident: "[The HR coordinator] chose to continue the conversation in contravention of [the worker's] lawful and reasonable direction, and she too raised her voice when doing so."
Upon her February 2024 return, the worker discovered she faced an external investigation into her workplace conduct. The investigation concluded she had engaged in unreasonable behaviour towards the HR operations manager and team members.
The employer argued these actions breached their bullying and harassment policy and created health and safety risks for other staff members. However, witness testimony varied significantly.
One HR team member said working with the worker was "difficult because of her behaviour in the workplace and her emotional state." Yet another stated she "was never abused by [the worker] during her employment, nor did [the worker] pose a threat to her safety."
The investigation found issues with how the worker handled certain situations, including an incident where she allegedly told others that a colleague had "stuffed up the budget report."
The Commission found several procedural issues in how the employer managed the situation. Despite promoting the worker three times and having her cover multiple roles, they had not provided feedback about performance concerns before the investigation.
The employer also arranged an independent medical examination without informing the worker about the pending investigation. On the day she returned from four months' leave, they formally notified her of the investigation.
The first indication of her dismissal came through a payslip showing termination payments, rather than formal notification.
The Commission stated: "[The worker's] conduct and performance warranted review, a caution, some performance management and some coaching. I consider the decision of [the employer] to characterise [the worker's] conduct as serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal was a disproportionate response."
It further emphasised: "Having promoted her, and for a time having required her to cover two roles, [the employer] had an obligation to support [the worker's] continuing professional development and help set her up for success."
The final ruling concluded: "I am satisfied that the dismissal of [the worker] was unreasonable because there was no valid reason to dismiss her... the summary dismissal was a disproportionate response to the actions of [the worker] and does not have regard to her previously unblemished record over 7 years."
The Commission scheduled a separate hearing to determine compensation and encouraged both parties to discuss settlement possibilities beforehand.
