• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Call us now  07 4688 2188

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

  • About
    • Our Origin Story
    • Our Manifesto
    • Our Future
  • Careers
  • Community
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • About
    • Our Origin Story
    • Our Manifesto
    • Our Future
  • Careers
  • Community
  • Contact Us
  • Search

Mobile Menu

  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Knowledge
  • Events
  • Industries
  • For Individuals
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Knowledge
  • Events
  • Industries
  • For Individuals

Communication crucial in disciplinary matters

You are here: Home / News / Communication crucial in disciplinary matters

Managing disciplinary matters with employees can be a tough process. Proper communication between employer and employee regarding misconduct is a crucial element in handling any disciplinary matter, as evidenced in a Fair Work Commission case involving an employee with English as her second language at an aged care facility.

In this case it was alleged that the aged care worker:

  1. laughed at the deaths of residents;
  2. ignored residents buzzers; and
  3. had been disrespectful to staff and residents.

Upon learning this information, the general manager of the aged care centre immediately escorted the employee from the premises and instructed her to return in a few hours for a meeting to discuss the allegations that were made against her.
The distraught employee, not knowing the reason for why she had been escorted from her workplace, drafted a resignation letter herself. She had assumed that the allegations involved a minor incident of a resident offering alcohol to her. To avoid any future embarrassment, the worker intended to resign from her position before her manager had the chance to dismiss her.

The employee then returned to the site and handed over her resignation letter, which was not accepted by the manager. Instead, the manager informed the employee that an investigation was to be conducted into a number of allegations against the employee.

Being from another country and not having English as her first language, the employee did not properly understand the situation and conveyed that she was adamant she did not want to participate in the investigation.
Despite the employee’s insistence, the general manager told the employee that, for the employee to be paid her four weeks’ notice as per her resignation letter, she would need to participate in the investigation. Otherwise, she could change the date of her resignation letter there and then to that current day and have her resignation effective immediately.
Determined not to participate in an investigation and not properly understanding what that would entail, the employee was forced into what’s known as a constructive dismissal, whereby the general manager pushed the employee into resigning that day.

The following day, the employee returned to work in an attempt to have the resignation rescinded – which the manager refused. The employee then filed an unfair dismissal application.

Commissioner Riordan found that this process was unprofessional, discourteous and unfair. The employee was given very minimal evidence of the allegations and never received a written outline of the allegations against her.

The Commissioner labelled the manager’s actions as a form of entrapment as the accusations were presented in a generalised and non-specific way. The Commission held that the decision to terminate an employee should never be based on a memory test, but rather the employee’s considered response to specific accusations. Given the facts, it was clear that the employee was not afforded the opportunity to present measured responses to the accusations presented against her and thus the dismissal was deemed harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

The Commission ordered to have the employee’s lost pay be restored and for the worker to be reinstated into her previous position.

Implications for business

The important take away from this case is that the communication between a manager (or other person in a similar role) and an employee is paramount. Businesses should be clear with their employees when managing a disciplinary matter. Sufficient information about an opportunity to respond must always be supplied to an employee so that they may properly respond to any and all allegations made against them.
If you need help in how to manage the disciplinary process for your employees, please contact one of our workplace experts for advice.

Previous Post: « Will I or won’t I have a will?
Next Post: Building Industry Payments Changes Delayed »

Primary Sidebar

We can help

Danny Clifford

Principal/Director

Ben Foley

Special Counsel, Education & Workplace Law

Angela Pratt

Special Counsel

Ebony Archer

Associate

Kyle Paull

Lawyer

Michelle Price

Paralegal

Related Alerts

April 14, 2021
Cash is King – Payment Times Reporting for Large Business (>$100 m) in Australia

The Federal Government has released the payment times reporting rules (Payment Times Reporting Rules...

April 13, 2021
Casual employment reform – what do you need to know?

On 26 March 2021, the rights and obligations of casual employees outlined in the...

April 8, 2021
“Right to Disconnect” After Hours in Victoria Signifies a Substantial Change to the Modern Working Environment

Police officers in Victoria have this week won the “right to disconnect” from work...

View other alerts

Footer

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

CLIFFORD GOULDSON LAWYERS
P: 07 4688 2188
F: 07 4688 2199
[email protected]
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Locations

TOOWOOMBA
Level 1, 610 Ruthven Street
PO Box 8208, Toowoomba South Qld 4350

BRISBANE
Level 54, 111 Eagle Street
Brisbane Q 4000

SUNSHINE COAST
Level 1,
Regatta Corporate Building
2 Innovation Parkway Birtinya QLD

 

MELBOURNE
Suite 37, Level 23,
Tower Five, 727 Collins Street
Melbourne VIC 3008
(Visited Office - available by appointment only)

SYDNEY
Suite 69, Level 26
1 Bligh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
(Visited Office - available by appointment only)

Practice Areas

  • Tax, Structures + Planning
  • Workplace
  • Litigation + Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial + Property
  • Construction
  • Intellectual Property
  • Privacy & Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use

Site Footer

CG Law (Trading) Pty Ltd ACN 143 426 028 t/a Clifford Gouldson Lawyers ABN 89 143 426 028 Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation..

Copyright © 2021 Clifford Gouldson Lawyers · Privacy & Disclaimer · Terms of Use · Marketing by John Gray Marketing · Site by Kingfisher