What happens when job responsibilities change without warning?
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a food and beverage supervisor challenged her dismissal after making unauthorised roster changes—an activity that had previously been part of her regular duties.
The case examined whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, considering both the employer's valid reasons for termination and the process followed in implementing the dismissal.
The worker started at a New South Wales golf and country club in April 2021 as a casual employee, becoming full-time in May 2022.
After resigning in May 2023, she returned in July 2023 as a trainee food and beverage supervisor. Her promotion to food and beverage supervisor in November 2023 came with significant responsibilities including ordering supplies, managing rosters, approving timesheets, and handling employee leave enquiries.
The role became more demanding following organisational changes, including the redundancy of two managers - the operations manager and the food and beverage manager. This meant taking on additional duties with limited resources and training.
A turning point came in May 2024 when the director wanted to take control of publishing rosters, a significant change to the worker's previous authority in roster management.
On 10 June 2024, when the worker reversed changes the director had made to a roster, the operations manager messaged:
"We can't be changing the shift without him knowing and he doesn't like it that you have the administrative access to this. So I suggest you don't do it without informing him or me. This now looks bad."
Despite acknowledging this instruction and confirming she would seek approval for future changes, the worker continued making unauthorised roster modifications. By late June, after she scheduled her sister for work without approval, the operations manager wrote:
"Who asked you to make a decision to ask her to work yesterday? Clearly you think you have to report into [sic] no one and disrespectful to the hierarchy or the company that you are working at."
The Commission found that while there was a valid reason for dismissal, the process was flawed. As stated in the decision:
"Although there was a valid reason for the dismissal that was notified to [the worker] in advance, the process leading to dismissal did not afford [the worker] procedural fairness and involved the refusal of a support person to assist in discussions about the dismissal."
The Commission emphasised the importance of proper warnings:
"In the context of her having been responsible for rostering for many months before 10 June 2024, [the worker] could and should have been told that her job was at risk if she continued to make changes to the roster without approval before any decision to terminate her employment was made."
While noting the worker's misconduct played a significant role, the Commission concluded:
"[The worker's] misconduct was a significant contributing factor to the dismissal. It gave [the employer] a valid reason for dismissal... On balance, I am satisfied that a further reduction of 15% (or $523.43) is appropriate. This leaves a compensation amount of $2,966.11."
