Fair Work Commission Ruling Highlights Risks of Poor Dismissal Process and Practices

The employer, Roadworx, argued the termination was mutually agreed, however the FWC found insufficient evidence to support this claim and awarded the employee $33,913 in compensation.

Background

The employee joined Roadworx in 2014 as a driver and transitioned into a supervisory role in 2019 under a council street-sweeping contract. 

When the contract ended in January 2024, he was reassigned various tasks, including night shifts, some of which he declined due to family commitments. Despite this, he continued to perform other duties until his termination in July 2024.

The dispute arose after a heated exchange with his manager regarding work instructions. During a meeting, the manager allegedly told the employee there was no longer a supervisory role for him, that other jobs were available, but accused him of being generally uncooperative and taking excessive sick leave. 

After an exchange of words, the manager told the employee to leave his keys and go. When the employee asked if he was being fired, the manager confirmed.

Two days later, the employee requested termination paperwork, only to receive a letter claiming the termination was a mutually agreed decision.

The employee subsequently claimed that he was unfairly dismissed, to which Roadworx raised a jurisdictional objection, claiming no dismissal had occurred.

Why the FWC Rejected the Employer’s ClaimLack of Evidence: The manager said a meeting transcript and a witness supported his version of events, but neither was provided to the FWC.

• Contradictory Actions: While the employer claimed the termination was mutual, the manager unilaterally decided to pay the employee four weeks’ notice in lieu, which indicated the decision was at the employer’s initiative.
• Employee’s Testimony: The FWC found the employee’s account credible, noting his immediate return of company property reflected an understanding that his employment had ended—not that he agreed to it.

Findings and Compensation

The FWC ruled the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Deputy President Wright noted the absence of a valid reason for the dismissal, the lack of notice or warnings, and the employee’s long and satisfactory work history.

The employee had since secured a new role with a labour hire company but was earning only 60 per cent of his previous income. Considering he would likely have remained employed for another year, the FWC awarded him $33,913 in compensation.

Lessons for Member Clubs

This case serves as a critical reminder for member clubs to approach employee terminations with caution and ensure compliance with relevant policies and laws.

It emphasises the importance of clear communication and proper evidence when managing termination processes. Member clubs must ensure procedural fairness and document critical conversations to avoid similar outcomes.

Prior to taking any disciplinary action, member clubs are encouraged to contact the Workplace Relations team at ClubsNSW for advice and guidance on how to approach a disciplinary process and to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act to minimise the risk of disputes escalating to the Commission.

For assistance with any employment issues or queries, member clubs can contact the Workplace Relations team at ClubsNSW via ClubAssist on 1300 730 001.