After being sacked for conduct including swearing at his Leading Hand, this employee thought he would be able to overturn his dismissal by going to the Fair Work Commission.
Unfortunately for the sacked employee, the FWC rejected the employee’s unfair dismissal claim, despite evidence from both the employer and the employee that the use of swear words had been common in the workplace.
Find out more about the distinction the FWC made between ‘descriptive language’ and the employee’s unacceptable workplace swearing; and importantly, how it was applied.
The Fair Work Commission’s annual report has revealed interesting statistics about the bullying claims brought in the first 6 months of the new anti-workplace bullying jurisdiction.
Although some commentators have downplayed the number of bullying claims lodged, the FWC’s General Manager has warned that it is “still too early” to draw conclusions about the Commission’s likely workloads in the workplace bullying jurisdiction.
The risk remains for those employers who write off the bullying jurisdiction as ‘much ado about nothing’.
A disgruntled, sacked employee received more than he bargained for when he took his dismissal to the Fair Work Commission.
The employee’s claims of harassment, intimidation and bullying at the hands of his employer failed to impress the FWC, especially when the tribunal heard details of the employee’s insubordinate and abusive conduct towards management.
Read on to find out what the employee did and what the FWC said about it – including the employee’s use of the c-word.
The FWC has unleashed a scathing attack on this employer’s HR department for leaving two inexperienced employees in charge of a workplace investigation that resulted in the summary dismissal of an abusive employee who had physical contact with a co-worker.
Despite having a valid reason for the fighting employee’s dismissal, a range of additional circumstances made the summary dismissal ultimately unfair.
The moral of this story is that an employer must not forget fair procedural requirements, even when a dismissal appears more than justified.