'Years of unblemished service': Manager claims unfair dismissal, no proper investigation

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal claim where a manager argued she was terminated without proper investigation after four years of unblemished service.

The manager maintained she had never received any prior complaints about her management style, and that her dismissal came suddenly during her personal leave following what she described as "trumped up allegations."

The case examined what constitutes reasonable grounds for summary dismissal under the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, particularly when dealing with workplace conduct complaints.

Background of the case

The dispute arose at a coffee roasting business in the ACT owned by three directors. The worker had managed their Duffy café since March 2020, and in May 2023, took on additional responsibilities at their second location in Curtin. As the only full-time employee, she reported directly to the directors.

The business was founded with strong ethical principles, partnering with a Papua New Guinea charity supporting victims of family violence. One director handled all administrative, bookkeeping and human resources functions, along with other operational duties.

The worker had received regular recognition for her performance, including monthly payments calculated at 5% of the Duffy store's operating surpluses from November 2020, which later increased to 7%.

Events leading to the dismissal began on Good Friday 2024, when a casual employee contacted one of the directors with serious concerns about the worker's conduct.

The director immediately emailed the worker, stating: "She raised serious issues, which in a nutshell, suggested you have ignored our number 1 policy outlined in the attached relating to common courtesy, cooperation and participation."

The worker and the complainant exchanged text messages over the weekend. The complainant wrote: "I don't really think I have to write down all those incidents which have happened in last many months... I can also skip replying to your message but as you saying you don't know what really happened which makes me think how someone can forget the incidents that make someone quit their work."

Employer’s investigation and dismissal

After Easter, the director interviewed other staff members about the allegations. In the show cause letter, he wrote:

"Of course, we recognise that this is a one-sided accusation. But upon further investigation, a customer has come forward corroborating her claims. Moreover, we have conducted an internal investigation and, much to our surprise and disappointment, almost all staff that have worked with you have been victim to the same experiences."

The worker was on personal leave when she received the show cause letter. She declined to attend the proposed meeting, responding that the allegations were false and that she needed to consult a solicitor to protect her position and legal rights.

Employer’s evidence against the manager

The Commission heard contrasting testimony about the worker's management approach. A former employee defended her style, stating: "In my opinion there is a huge difference between a boss that has standards and asks for your best and one that belittles you for not meeting those standards. [The worker] is the former."

However, another current employee said working with the manager was "very intense" and described feeling belittled by how she spoke to staff. The director argued that staff were increasingly reluctant to work with the manager, with some refusing shifts entirely.

The FWC explained: "I accept [the director] reasonably believed that the unwillingness of staff to work with [the worker] exposed another serious threat to the operation of the business, as it was not possible to hire new staff to work with [the worker] (for safety reasons) given what he then knew."

While noting some procedural issues, the Commission stated: "The process [the employer] undertook was not perfect. For example, while the Show Cause Letter invited [the worker] to provide a response to the allegations, the covering email thanked her for her contribution, suggesting a decision had already been made as to her dismissal."

The Commission emphasised: "This is not a finding that [the worker] engaged in serious misconduct. Again, the focus of the Code in relation to summary dismissal is on [the employer's] reasonably held belief that such conduct had occurred, and not whether the conduct did in fact occur."

The Commission said that the worker’s dismissal was consistent with the requirements, thereby dismissing the worker’s claim.

The decision highlighted how the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code permits different standards for workplace investigations compared to larger organisations, while still requiring employers to have reasonable grounds for believing serious misconduct has occurred.