The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently adjudicated an unfair dismissal case involving a worker in the addiction treatment sector. This worker, who was made redundant, argued that her dismissal was unjust. The case brought to light several critical issues, including redundancy processes, redeployment obligations, and employee misconduct discovered during the redundancy period. It underscores the importance for employers to adhere to proper procedures during restructuring and for employees to maintain their obligations until their final day of work.
Case Background
The worker in question had been employed part-time as a support worker at a therapeutic community facility since early 2020 and also held a casual position as a night weekend supervisor. Her part-time support worker role started on February 17, 2024, while her casual night weekend supervisor position began on August 2, 2021.
In January 2024, the employer announced a review of staffing arrangements, citing concerns about inefficiencies and the time required for handovers between part-time support workers. Following the review, the employer decided to make the worker’s part-time position redundant and created a new full-time senior support worker role. This decision was communicated to the worker on February 5, 2024.
The worker applied for the new senior role and a full-time night weekend supervisor position but was unsuccessful in both applications. Consequently, her employment in both roles was terminated effective April 5, 2024.
Key Issues in Dispute
The case revolved around several contentious points:
- Whether the redundancy was genuine
- If the employer met its consultation obligations
- Whether it was reasonable to redeploy the worker
- If terminating the causal role was unfair
The worker contended that her position was still necessary and that redeployment would have been reasonable. However, the employer argued that the redundancy was genuine and justified.
The employer provided evidence of a staffing review, motivated by concerns about inefficiencies in task allocation between part-time support workers and nurses. A review committee found that significant time was wasted due to handovers, leading to the decision to replace two part-time roles with a single full-time senior support worker position. The employer claimed to have consulted with the worker during this process.
Discovery of Worker Misconduct
A critical element of the case was the discovery of misconduct by the worker just before her employment ended. On April 3, 2024, the employer addressed an incident where the worker sent an email from her work account to her personal email, containing client information. The worker admitted to this but claimed she did so to demonstrate her competency, not to misuse the information. However, the FWC found this explanation insufficient, describing the act as self-serving and not aligned with her obligations to the clients and the employer.
After her termination, it was revealed that the worker had sent 46 such emails to her personal account.
FWC’s Decision on Redeployment
The FWC determined that while redeployment might have been reasonable before the misconduct was discovered, the worker’s actions provided a valid reason for dismissal. The decision stated that it was not reasonable to redeploy the worker given the discovered misconduct.
Ultimately, the FWC dismissed the worker’s unfair dismissal claim, concluding that the redundancy was genuine and that redeployment was not reasonable due to the misconduct. The FWC also noted that employers could rely on misconduct discovered after a dismissal decision, provided it occurred before the termination took effect.
This case serves as a crucial reminder for both employers and employees about the importance of following proper procedures and maintaining professional obligations until the end of employment.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog was accurate at the time of writing and is intended as general advice. For specific advice, please call AHR on 1800 577 515.
