Wrongful dismissal under common law

Discuss About The Unfair Dismissal Provisions Of Common Law.

At common law a claim in relation to a wrongful discussion is related to a breach of contract claim. The claim is based on the fact that the employer did not have the power to terminate employment contract. The claim comes into existence when the termination of the employee is done before the fixed term without providing notice. In relation to such claim counterclaim of summary dismissal can be made by the employer. In case the employer does not have any justification for terminating the employment it is generally advised to settle the claim. The damages in relation to a claim of wrongful dismissal at common law correspond to that of a breach of contract. As provided by the court in the case of Goldburg v Shell Oil (1990) 95 ALR 711 any expenses which have been incurred by the employee to get a new job have to be compensated in case of a wrongful dismissal by the previous employer.

Provisions in relation to an unfair dismissal are provided under section 382 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). It has been stated by the provisions of this section that if two requirements are satisfied an employee protected from and unfair dismissal. The employee has to be working for the employer for a period of at least 6 months or for a period of 12 months in case of a small business employer. The employee must also be covered through an enterprise or award management

The fair work Commission has to be satisfied that there was an actual dismissal of the employee. According to the provisions of section 386 and employee would be considered to have been terminated if the employment was brought to an end before the fixed term are they would have been forced to resign by the employer. For example in the case of Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics (1995) 62 IR 200 it has been stated by the court where the employee has resigned due to a threat of being fired it will lead to a constructive dismissal.

It has been provided through section 385 of the FWA that a person would be considered to have unfairly dismissed in case the fair work commission is satisfied that the dismissal in context was unjust, unreasonable or harsh. Under section 387 of the act in order to determine whether the dismissal was unreasonable, unjust or harsh there are certain factors which needs to be taken into consideration. These factors are as follows

• Weather in relation to the capacity and conduct of the employee the reason for dismissal was valid
• Whether notice an opportunity to respond has been given to the applicant before the dismissal
• Whether any warnings about unsatisfactory performance has been given to the employee
• Weather there was an unnecessary refusal on the part of the employer to allow the applicant have a support person with respect to dismissal meetings
• The size and degree of the employer business
• Any other matter which the farewell Commission may consider relevant

Provisions of unfair dismissal under Fair Work Act 2009

There are two kinds of fairness. As stated by the provisions of section 387 (a) the valid reason requirement depends upon either performance and capacity or behaviour and misconduct. As stated by the provisions of section 387 (b) the employer must observe procedural fairness while terminating the employee.

As stated by the case of Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 329 quoted in Lyle Whyte v Ullrich Aluminium Pty Ltd [2006] AIRC 692 a valid reason for dismissing and employee would be a reason which is defensible, well founded or sound and which is not fanciful, capricious, prejudice or spiteful.

Claim for unfair dismissal is based on the case facts. Therefore conduct through which a conduct has been justified in one case may not be adequate to justify the same dismissal in another case.

There have been various cases in Australia where the circumstances of an unfair dismissal have been discussed by the courts. In the case of Road Transport v Gervasoni (2010) 193 IR 279 it was stated by the court that the dismissal of a truck driver was fair in situation where it is disable  the speed limit and indulged into excessive speeding.

In the case of Lawrence v Coal & Allied (2010) 202 IR 388 it was stated by the court that it was manifestly harsh to dismiss an employee after 28 years of services for the breach of a safety procedure even if it was of a serious nature. On the other hand in the case of Parmalat v Wililo (2011) 207 IR 243 serious breach in relation to safety rules was considered to be a justified dismissal. In the case of Qantas v Carter (2012) 223 IR 177 it was found by the court that it is unfair to dismiss a longstanding employee for a minor mistake at work there’s no previous warnings had been provided and the own discipline policy of the company was not followed..

In the case of Barwon Health v Colson (2013) 233 IR 364 the court stated that distribution of a letter which personally attacked the supervisor of the employee was a valid reason for dismissal however that dismissal is unfair because of the lack of previous warning and good record of the employee.

In the case of Australian Postal v Rushiti (2012) 224 IR 382 the court stated that a worker having previously unblemished record was dismissed fairly for sending and storing pornographic  emails which was a clear breach of the IT policies drawn to his attention.

Factors that determine unjust, unreasonable or harsh dismissal

It has been provided via the situation that Andrew has been dismissed by Monash University and he wants to make an unfair dismissal. Here he has actually been dismissed as required under section 386 of the FWA as his employment is brought to an end before the fixed term without notice.  He has been working continuously for the University for ten years. He has a previously unblemished record in relation to his employment. Therefore he is eligible to make a claim form unfair dismissal under section 382 of the FWA as he has been working for the employer for a period of at least 6 months.  He has been facing some personal problems lately and had been caught by the police for driving under the influence of alcohol. According to the workplace policy of the university he was required to notify such offences which he has done in this situation. He had been however asked to take a counselling session which he has refused stating that he will not be committing the offence again. He has been dismissed without notice as his attendance with the counsellor has failed. Under section 387 of the act in order to determine whether the dismissal was unreasonable, unjust or harsh there are certain factors which needs to be taken into consideration. Here the capacity and conduct of Andrew is not at fault. He has not been provided an opportunity to respond before the dismissal and there was no warnings given to him. Thus the dismissal is unreasonable, unjust or harsh. Further as per section 387 (a) the valid reason requirement depends upon either performance and capacity or behaviour and misconduct and here none of such factors are at fault. As provided in Selvachandran v Peteron a valid reason for dismissing and employee would be a reason which is case defensible, well founded or sound and which is not fanciful, capricious, prejudice or spiteful. Here the decision is not defensible, well founded or sound and is financial, capricious, prejudice or spiteful. This can be further established by the application of the case of Lawrence v Coal & Allied where it was found that it is harsh to dismiss an employee after 28 years of services for the breach of a safety procedure even if it was of a serious nature. In addition the provisions of the case of Qantas v Carter also suggest that where Andrew has been a long standing employee it would not be justified to dismiss him for the mere reason of not attending the counsellor regularly. Here Andrew was not  provided any previous warnings in relation to the termination and thus as per the case of Barwon Health v Colson he dismissal is not fair.

However in case Monash had a workplace policy on its website that authorised supervisors to refer employees to counselling than the claim of Andrew would definitely weaken. This can be evidently stated via the provisions of Australian Postal v Rushiti where the breach of a IT policies drawn to the employee’s attention who had a unblemished record was considered as a fair dismissal. Here it would be better to claim a compensation for Andrews as the courts are reluctant to order Reinstatement

Conclusion

Thus it can be concluded that Andrew has been dismissed by the university in an unfair manner and he should make a claim for compensation rather than Reinstatement

References

Australian Postal v Rushiti (2012) 224 IR 382

Barwon Health v Colson (2013) 233 IR 364

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Goldburg v Shell Oil (1990) 95 Accounting 711

Lawrence v Coal & Allied (2010) 202 IR 388

Lyle Whyte v Ullrich Aluminium Pty Ltd [2006] AIRC 692

Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics (1995) 62 IR 200

Parmalat v Wililo (2011) 207 IR 243

Qantas v Carter (2012) 223 IR 177

Road Transport v Gervasoni (2010) 193 IR 279

Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 329