Phone etiquette: Agent fired for hanging up on clients

Agent worked in a 'highly sensitive and confidential' industry

Phone etiquette: Agent fired for hanging up on clients

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has recently upheld the dismissal of an agent after her employer found that she had hung up on phone calls with clients, exposing the business to “significant reputational damage.”

The case involves a business that acts as an authorised debt collection agency and operates a call centre. When an agent reportedly kept hanging up on connected callers, the business became concerned over the accounts of their “major corporate clients.”

The agent was dismissed based on the said report and recovered inaccuracies on her timesheets. The employer asked her to explain the incidents, but it was alleged that she “misrepresented the reason for the early termination of calls in her records.”

The FWC found that “in the context of a call centre operating within the financial services regulations,” the allegations were “concerning.” It added that the “premature termination of a phone call” for the said business was a “very serious issue.”

The FWC said that the agent’s employer relies upon “the making or taking of calls and the accurate reporting of each” and explained it was “fundamental to the conduct of their business.”

It also said that the business’ failure in these aspects will cause “significant reputational damage” due to the nature of their clients’ industries and the fact that their calls are “regularly audited to monitor compliance.”

The FWC found that the agent’s non-compliance with the standard practices and procedures was a valid reason for dismissal.

It noted the employer’s workplace that “relies so heavily on trust given the highly sensitive and confidential nature of the information involved.”

But the agent raised that the employer didn’t “allow her an opportunity to respond to the allegations,” thus failing to “afford [her] natural justice.”

Despite this, the FWC ruled “the gravity of her conduct” meant  her dismissal was “not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.”

The decision was handed down on 23 December.