TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – ss.387, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – applicant employed as Operations Manager since January 2012 – employment terminated 7 September 2016 with immediate effect – applicant’s son employed as apprentice electrician with respondent – applicant approached HR Manager about why he had not been involved in discussion on 20 July 2016 about son’s apprenticeship progress – respondent submitted applicant’s employment terminated due to misconduct in meeting with HR Manager and refusal to participate in meeting to discuss written complaints – alleged applicant had behaved in an intimidating manner – applicant submitted termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable – Commission found decision to terminate applicant’s employment based on behaviour during discussion on 20 July 2016 despite termination letter citing a number of reasons – in many cases the concepts of harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination will overlap Byrne & Frew – employer must have a valid reason that is sound, defensible and justified on objective analysis Rode – Commission found while applicant’s behaviour unacceptable, not satisfied the Rode test had been established – no valid reason – satisfied dismissal was harsh and unreasonable – remedy – reinstatement not appropriate – compensation – Sprigg applied – Commission satisfied applicant’s employment would have continued for at least a further 26 weeks – 10% deduction for contingencies – 20% deduction for applicant’s misconduct – $27,787.65 compensation (less tax) ordered. Hanson v Precept Services P/L
…
