by David Kidd | Sep 25, 2018 | Annotated Fair Work Act
[2018] FWC 4991 Qld Star v WorkPac P/L (“Ms Star’s dismissal was brought about by the response of WorkPac to the directive from BMA [host employer] to remove her from the Goonyella Riverside Mine site. … Ms Star’s dismissal related to conduct. That conduct was not a valid reason for dismissal. There is no evidence of any other reason – valid or otherwise – for a directive to be issued by BMA requiring the removal of a longstanding labour hire employee from the Goonyella Riverside Mine site. The dismissal was also unfair on the basis that there was no discussion with Ms Star about the decision to remove her from the site and the consequential termination of her employment prior to the termination being effected. The BMA directive was accepted by WorkPac managers as a fait accompli and there was no attempt made to discuss the directive with a relevant manager of BMA or to confirm the reason for the directive or whether the contractual provisions between BMA and WorkPac with respect to unsatisfactory performance by WorkPac personnel applied. The dismissal of Ms Star was harsh because of its consequences for her personal and economic situation and because there was no conduct sufficient to justify her dismissal. The dismissal was also unreasonable because it was decided on inferences which were not reasonably open to WorkPac on the basis of the information it had or which it could reasonably have obtained from BMA” @105-107 – in [2018] FWC 5745 reinstatement to the same position at BMA ordered against WorkPac despite no surety BMA will allow it – no purpose would...
by David Kidd | Sep 6, 2018 | Fair Work Law & Annotated Act
[2018] FWC 5519 WA Tiller v Relationships Australia WA Inc (the A held personal views and beliefs inconsistent with R’s policies but had not breached the policies – “Asking Mr Tiller during the meeting ‘Where do we go from here?’ even in the context where Ms Reilly had strongly expressed her concern and disagreement with his views and beliefs did not leave him with no other choice but to resign and nor was his resignation the probable result of asking this open-ended question. Mr Tiller could simply have waited to see what RAWA did about the situation” @174-175 – “no evidence that there was an ultimatum given to Mr Tiller during the meeting on 14 March 2018 that he would be dismissed if he didn’t resign or that he should resign in order to preserve his professional reputation. Considering what occurred objectively whilst it was reasonable for Mr Tiller to understand that his employment was precarious his employer’s conduct was not such that his resignation was a probable result. Mr Tiller was not forced to resign; rather Mr Tiller voluntarily exercised a choice to do so”...
