Worker cries dismissal but employer argues varied role not repudiation
A worker recently slammed his employer for allegedly promoting him, demoting him, and then eventually firing him before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), alleging that his responsibilities varied from his original contract.
The worker, Julian Treleani, filed for an unfair dismissal remedy against his employer, Richtek Melbourne Pty Ltd. Treleani was a roofer and started on November 25, 2022. In December 2022, Treleani was requested to transition from hands-on roofing tasks to sales work, specifically providing quotes to clients.
He accepted this change, interpreting it as a promotion to a new role. However, in August 2023, Richtek required Treleani to return to roofing duties, which he declined. He considered it a breach of contract and a dismissal under the Fair Work Act. He said that the dismissal was unfair and sought compensation.
On the other hand, Richtek disputed the application, asserting that Treleani was never dismissed. It said the alleged promotion in December 2022 didn’t happen, stating that all roofers were expected to engage in sales-related tasks as part of their regular duties.
Richtek said that, by August 2023, the scarcity of sales work led to Treleani's redeployment to roofing, charactersing it as a return to normal work outlined in his original employment contract.
Richtek, a roofing services provider, initially employed Treleani for roof installation tasks, involving manual labour using both personal and company-provided tools. In December 2022, a conversation with Richtek's general manager, resulted in Treleani exclusively handling quoting duties. This arrangement continued until May 2023, when customer leads diminished, and Richtek proposed altering Treleani's remuneration structure, which he declined.
On August 19, 2023, Richtek's state manager informed Treleani of his "demotion" to a roofing installer due to unmet key performance indicators (KPIs). Despite Treleani's disagreement, Richtek maintained the decision, leading to his paid personal leave on August 22, 2023.
In response, Treleani, on August 23, 2023, notified Richtek's CEO, Phillip Richardson, that he believed the contract was varied and expressed dissatisfaction with his “demotion.” Following failed attempts to resolve the matter, Treleani's lawyers officially notified Richtek of his intention to file an unfair dismissal claim.
According to records, the employer said that Treleani's contract allowed for varied duties within his skills and knowledge. While acknowledging his initial role transition, Richtek said that all roofers were expected to provide quotes, and this shift was part of adapting to business needs.
The CEO clarified that, by August 2023, quoting work had diminished, prompting Treleani's return to roofing tasks. Richtek insisted that this was not a dismissal but a directive to fulfill the original employment contract.
Meanwhile, Treleani said the company's actions amounted to a repudiation of his contract and an unfair dismissal. Richtek said that no dismissal occurred and that Treleani chose not to comply with his roofing duties, treating it as a resignation.
Company did ‘the right thing’
The employer’s CEO gave evidence that the company has separate contracts for roofers and quoters, and that roofers have a higher hourly rate, but quoters receive higher commissions.
The FWC found that “the company expects roofers to undertake quoting work as part of their further duties under their contracts.” Although Treleani said that this was “not his understanding,” the FWC believed the CEO as “a credible witness” since he has a “sound knowledge of the business and its contracts.”
The FWC also accepted the CEO’s position that he “believed the company was doing the right thing by redeploying Treleani to roofing work.”
“The company tries to keep its workforce employed rather than making employees redundant. This is why its contracts allow it to deploy employees on other work,” it said.
Thus, as to the worker’s belief that he was “promoted, demoted, then fired,” the FWC said that he was not “dismissed on the initiative of the employer, nor was he forced to resign.”
It said the employer was also fulfilling business requirements. “The company did not repudiate his contract by requiring him to return to roofing work. His original contract remained in effect,” it said.
“Treleani ended the employment relationship, not the company.” Consequently, it dismissed the worker’s unfair dismissal application.
