• 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 Future
    • CGLaw COVID Protocol
    • Toowoomba
    • Brisbane
    • Sunshine Coast
  • Careers
  • Community
    • 2023 Artist-in-Residence Program
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • About
    • Our Origin Story
    • Our Future
    • CGLaw COVID Protocol
    • Toowoomba
    • Brisbane
    • Sunshine Coast
  • Careers
  • Community
    • 2023 Artist-in-Residence Program
  • 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

What can we learn from the ghosts of Christmas functions past?

You are here: Home / News / What can we learn from the ghosts of Christmas functions past?

Tis the season to be merry and join your colleagues for a much deserved Christmas function to celebrate the year that was and the year to come.

But while employers are already in the midsts of holding Christmas functions (with a disgruntled employee in a Santa Clause costume as required), it is important to reflect on the ghosts of Christmas-functions-past and ensure your function does not form part of the Fair Work Commission’s yearly queue of cases dealing with the not-so-cheery patrons of a Christmas function gone wrong.

Keenan v Leighton Boral Amey NSW Pty Ltd

Twas the night of Leighton Boral Amey NSW Pty Ltd’s (Leighton’s) annual Christmas function where the alcohol was free flowing and self-service was the only kind of service for the celebratory night in the lead up to Christmas.

The employee in this case, Mr Keenan, took full advantage of the festivities and the lack of supervision and control of his employer to monitor the alcohol consumption and behaviour of its employees. After a considerable amount of alcohol consumption, a very intoxicated Mr Keenan proceeded to:

  • tell a director of Leighton’s to “f##k off”;
  • tell another male colleague to “f##k off”;
  • ask a female colleague “who the f##k are you? what do you even do here?”; and
  • repeatedly ask for the phone number of a female colleague, questioned her about her relationship status and family and said “I want to ask for your number, but I don’t want to be rejected”.

Once the function had reached an end, Mr Keenan later, whilst attending a public bar, proceeded to continue drinking and:

  • tried to touch the face of a female colleague;
  • told a female colleague “I used to think you were a stuck up b###h but Ryan says you are alright. If Ryan likes you then you must be ok”;
  • grabbed and kissed a female colleague on the lips and told her that he would be dreaming about her later that night; and
  • told a female colleague that his mission for the evening was to find out what colour underwear she was wearing.

As you can reasonably deduce, Mr Keenan was later dismissed from his employment on the grounds that he had engaged in two counts of sexual harassment.

Mr Keenan later filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Fair Work Commission contending that his dismissal was harsh, unfair and unjust and sought reinstatement.

The decision

Interestingly, the Commission found that the dismissal was harsh and unjust on the grounds that:

  • the incidents forming the basis for Mr Keenan’s dismissal were not sufficiently connected to his employment and did not sufficiently impact upon Leighton and its employees (given that the events occurred after the Christmas function at a different venue);
  • Mr Keenan’s conduct towards his female colleague at the function, while unwelcome, did not constitute sexual harassment and were not a valid reason for dismissal;
  • Mr Keenan had a clean employment record and the conduct, in the Commission’s view, was out of character;
  • the employer, in the eyes of the Commission, was partly to blame for allowing the function to occur in the manner that it did (being uncontrolled self-service of alcohol). Vice President Hatcher notably said:

“in my view it is contradictory and self-defeating for an employer to require compliance with its usual standards of behaviour at a function but at the same time allow the unlimited service of free alcohol at the function.”

  • the Commission was of the view the more appropriate response ought to have been to demote Mr Keenan, issue him with a final warning and require him to write an apology to the employees involved together with banning him from all future functions where alcohol is served.

The decision in Keenan is an interesting one and will serve as a cautionary tale for employers to ensure their Christmas functions are conducted in an appropriate and controlled manner and to proceed carefully when considering allegations against employees where the conduct in question occurred outside the workplace.

Employers should consider having appropriate policies in place that deal with employee conduct both during and after work functions and ensure employees are made aware of the expectations they are required to uphold whilst consuming alcohol and partaking in festivities.

Do not hesitate to contact Clifford Gouldson Lawyers’ workplace team should you have any questions regarding the content of this update or if you are interested in implementing a policy for workplace functions.

Next Post: When Christmas parties go VERY wrong »

Primary Sidebar

We can help

Danny Clifford

Director

Angela Pratt

Special Counsel

Monique Chow

Lawyer

Michelle Price

Paralegal

Related Alerts

November 7, 2023
No Right to Work From Home

A recent case of the Fair Work Division of the Federal Circuit and Family...

September 6, 2023
Employer’s authorisation for overtime implied by conduct

The Fair Work division of the Federal Court has recently handed down an important...

August 17, 2023
Set-offs in Defence of Underpayment Claims – Latest Full Federal Court Decision

A February 2023 Federal Court decision considered whether payments made by an employer to...

View other alerts

Footer

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

CLIFFORD GOULDSON LAWYERS
P: 07 4688 2188
F: 07 4688 2199
mail@cglaw.com.au
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Locations

TOOWOOMBA (Head Office)
259 Ruthven Street,
Toowooomba Q 4350

PO Box 8208,
Toowoomba South Q 4350

Toowoomba Office

BRISBANE
Level 5, 231 George Street,
Brisbane Q 4000

PO Box 12802 George Street,
Brisbane Q 4003

Brisbane Office

 

SUNSHINE COAST
L1, Regatta Corporate Building,
2 Innovation Parkway,
Birtinya Q 4575

Locked Bag 5010
Caloundra DC Q 4551

Sunshine Coast Office

Practice Areas

  • Wills, Estates, Planning + Structuring
  • 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 © 2023 Clifford Gouldson Lawyers · Privacy & Disclaimer · Terms of Use · Marketing by John Gray Marketing · Site by Kingfisher