[2013] FWC 4111

Download Word Document

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

AND

REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mrs Karen Harris
v
WorkPac Pty Ltd
(U2013/5420)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 30 JULY 2013

Unfair dismissal.

[1] This is an application by Mrs Karen Harris that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with WorkPac Pty Ltd.

[2] WorkPac Pty Ltd dismissed Mrs Harris for bullying a fellow employee and considered her behaviour gross misconduct.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] On 3 January 2013, Mrs Karen Harris (Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) seeking remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from WorkPac Pty Ltd (Employer) on 20 December 2012.

[4] The application is made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[5] The application was not resolved at conciliation and referred to me for arbitration on 19 February 2013.

[6] On 8 March 2013, I issued procedural directions for a hearing on 21 May 2013.

[7] At the hearing on 21 May 2013, the Applicant was represented by Mr G Pinchen, Principal, A Whole New Approach Pty Ltd. Evidence was given by the Applicant on her own behalf.

[8] The Employer was represented by Ms K Bowe, Head of Industrial Relations, People and Organisational Capability. Evidence was given on behalf of the Employer by Ms Rachel Maye who was, at the time of the dismissal, the Business Centre Administration Manager (BCAM) and who now “job shares” that position. Evidence was also given by Ms Deanne George who, until 4 January 2013, was the Receptionist in the Rockingham Business Centre (RBC) where both Ms Maye and the Applicant worked at the time of Mrs Harris’ dismissal.

[9] At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my decision. Having considered the documentary material as a result of the procedural directions, evidence and submissions, this is my decision and reasons for decision.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

[10] Mrs Harris commenced employment with the Employer on 29 November 2004.

[11] At the time of her dismissal, the Applicant was employed as Recruitment Co-ordinator Team Leader at the RBC.

[12] On 1 November 2010, Ms Rachel Maye commenced as BCAM at the RBC.

[13] On 27 August 2012, Ms Maria Scully commenced at the RBC as the Business Centre Manager (BCM).

[14] In early December 2012, Ms Maye resigned from her position. As part of leaving her employment, Ms Maye participated in an exit interview.

[15] The exit interview was over the telephone with Ms Bulmer in Brisbane. At the exit interview, Ms Maye did not indicate that she kept a “note book” of her interaction with Mrs Harris but gave “excerpts” of what she had written down in her note book.

[16] Ms Maye cannot recall if she mentioned that she kept a note book during her exit interview.

[17] Reference to a note book is not mentioned in Ms Maye’s written witness statement nor was it produced in evidence.

[18] On 19 December 2012, Mrs Harris was advised that she was required to attend a meeting on 20 December 2012 with Ms Bowe and Ms Swift to discuss “serious concerns the management have in relation to allegations relating to your treatment of a fellow team member [Ms Maye]”.

[19] Ms Bowe requested further details of the allegations from Ms Swift and was advised that further information would be forthcoming when Ms Bowe arrived in Perth.

[20] At 8:26 am on 20 December 2012, Mrs Harris received an email from Ms Bowe detailing further information regarding the allegations.

[21] At 9:05 am, Mrs Harris provided a written response to Ms Bowe.

[22] At 11:30 am, Mrs Harris attended the meeting with Ms Bowe and Ms Swift. Mrs Harris had a support person present at the meeting.

[23] Mrs Harris denied all allegations made against her.

[24] At the conclusion of the 11:30 am meeting, the Applicant was advised that her responses would be considered and that she was required to attend a further meeting at 2:00 pm.

[25] At approximately 2:30 pm, Mrs Harris and her support person were called into a meeting.

[26] At the meeting, Mrs Harris was advised that her employment was being terminated immediately for bullying Ms Maye which the Employer considered gross misconduct. The Applicant collected her personal belongings and left the premises.

[27] Mrs Harris was provided with a letter terminating her employment dated 24 December 2012. The relevant parts of the letter are as follows:

I confirm that as a result of the above finding your employment was terminated due to gross misconduct...WorkPac is entitled to dismiss you without notice or without paying notice in lieu. Out of respect for your length of service, WorkPac have decided to pay you 5 weeks’...”

...As your employment has been terminated due to gross misconduct...you will not be paid any outstanding commissions...”

RELEVANT STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

[28] It is not in dispute that Mrs Harris is protected from unfair dismissal pursuant to s.382 of the FW Act and that the application was made within the statutory timeframe in paragraph 394(2)(a) of the FW Act.

[29] Section 385 of the FW Act sets out the meaning of unfair dismissal as follows:

[30] The criteria for whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable can be found at s.387 of the FW Act and is as follows:

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION

[31] The Applicant submits:

EMPLOYER’S SUBMISSION

[32] The Employer submits that:

CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Was there a valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal? - s.387(a)

[33] I have adopted the definition of a valid reason stated by North J in Selvachandran v Peterson Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 at 373 in the following terms:

[34] The witness statement tendered in proceedings by Ms Maye states that, “It was clear from almost the beginning [of her employment] that Mrs Harris did not like me and has singled me out to be treated differently from others” 1. Ms Maye continues in her witness statement that her working relationship with Mrs Harris was difficult both in the way Ms Maye felt she was being treated by Mrs Harris and also how Mrs Harris conducted herself in the workplace.

[35] Ms Maye describes Mrs Harris’ behaviour towards her in terms of “awful”, “dismissive”, “being embarrassing”, “barking answers”, “humiliation”, “embarrassed”, “aggressive” and “belittled”. 2

[36] Moving from a general description of Mrs Harris’ behaviour, Ms Maye gave evidence of particular incidents. Further, Ms Maye kept a record of Mrs Harris’ behaviour towards her from July 2011 and “made a number of complaints” to the then BCM.

[37] Towards the end of her employment, Mrs Harris made a complaint about Ms Maye’s work performance. Ms Maye’s response to Mrs Harris’ complaint is that, “I feel that Mrs Harris only made the complaint about me to get me into trouble. I feel like Mrs Harris had it in for me” 3.

[38] Ms Maye also raised her complaints about Mrs Harris with the Regional Manager, Mr Karl Stockman.

[39] Ms Maye resigned and following an exit interview, the Employer conducted an investigation into the complaints by Ms Maye against the Applicant.

[40] While I am satisfied that the working relationship between Ms Maye and Mrs Harris had its difficulties, the only documentation I have from the Employer in resisting the claim by Mrs Harris of unfair dismissal is a “Harassment, Unlawful Discrimination & Workforce Bullying Policy” (Policy). While the Policy is succinct, its value or success lies in promoting good behaviour, preventing bad behaviour and pursuing unacceptable behaviour. I have no submission or evidence which indicates that the Employer does not consider workplace bullying and harassment serious. Further, the Employer has set out what is inappropriate behaviour. However, it would appear that the Employer did not act on Ms Maye’s complaints until she resigned from her employment - that, of itself, is inappropriate.

[41] It is only when employers enquire into complaints, do employees feel confident in making complaints. Once employees have made complaints, employers can then determine the validity of such complaints. If complaints are well grounded and the behaviour by an employee inappropriate, action should be taken against the perpetrator; this action should be proportionate to the behaviour. Where complaints are not sound, and there will be such circumstances, the complainant should also be informed swiftly and counselled in proportion to the scale of the accusations made. In such cases, managers and supervisors are left with the task of healing or repairing working relationships - which will be, in some circumstances, an unenviable task.

[42] In this case, Ms Maye took the first important step of making a complaint verbally. I was not provided with any grievance policy which requires grievances/complaints to be put in writing.

[43] Irrespective of whether there is a grievance policy, I did not receive from the Employer: any written record of what Ms Maye complained about to both the BCM and RM; how those complaints were recorded by the Employer and what action was taken by the Employer in following up the complaints of Ms Maye. What I do have from Ms Maye is a witness statement which states that nothing was done until she stated her reasons for resigning in an exit interview.

[44] In examination in chief, Ms Maye’s evidence is:

[45] In cross examination, Ms Maye’s evidence was:

Did he do that?---I don’t know.

Did he give you any feedback?---Not that I remember.

Did you find that unusual?---No.

You didn’t expect feedback?---No.” 5

[46] However, notwithstanding this lack of feedback, the evidence of Ms Maye was that the bullying and humiliation continued. Ms Maye’s evidence was that she commenced complaining 18 months prior to handing in her resignation 6. Notwithstanding the complaints, the alleged bullying and humiliation continued7.

[47] Ms Maye’s specific examples of bullying and humiliation in evidence were approximately 17 months prior to her resigning 8. While Ms Maye acknowledges that she did not raise the complaints with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), I consider these were understandable reasons. Finally, in cross examination, Ms Maye concedes that the Branch Manager, Regional Manager and the Industrial Relations Department failed her9.

[48] Mrs Harris commenced in November 2004.

[49] When Ms Maye commenced employment with the Employer, Mrs Harris was working in the Rockingham Branch. About three (3) months after Ms Maye commenced employment, Mrs Harris’ husband was diagnosed with testicular cancer. On 19 August 2011, Mrs Harris’ husband passed away.

[50] In her evidence, Mrs Harris, understandably, gives evidence that this period of her husband’s illness and subsequent passing was extremely difficult and traumatic for her and her family.

[51] After her husband’s death, Mrs Harris returned to work in October 2011.

[52] In early 2012, Mrs Harris gives evidence that Ms Maye came to her upset alleging that the Branch Manager was harassing her and speaking to her inappropriately. On that occasion, Mrs Harris advised Ms Maye that she should take the issue up with the Regional Manager. While Ms Maye denies the characterisation of the conversation, she does not dispute that Mrs Harris advised her to raise the matter with the Regional Manager.

[53] The Branch Manager ceased employment shortly afterwards. I was not advised of the reasons for the Branch Manager leaving his employment. However, if, and I stress, if termination of his employment was for reasons associated with Ms Maye’s complaints, this episode illustrates, on that occasion, the Employer acted swiftly following her complaint and demonstrates that a finding of inappropriate behaviour would not be tolerated in the workplace. That appears not to have occurred in the case of Ms Maye’s complaints regarding Mrs Harris.

[54] In the second half of 2012, the Employer appointed new Branch and Regional Managers.

[55] The evidence of Mrs Harris is that after the commencement of the new Branch and Regional Managers, Ms Maye moved from full-time to part-time employment.

[56] The evidence of Mrs Harris is that the new Managers were dissatisfied with Ms Maye’s part-time employment arrangement and wished to return to the previous arrangement of the position being one of full-time employment. Further that Ms Maye was making errors.

[57] To manage the situation, Mrs Harris was advised that the Branch/Regional Managers intended to “performance manage” Ms Maye out of employment. In doing so, they requested Mrs Harris to provide them with errors in Ms Maye’s work. Mrs Harris provided errors of Ms Maye’s work to Ms Swift, Branch Manager.

[58] In her written evidence, Mrs Harris provided an email which she forwarded to the Employer on 2 January 2013 after her employment had been terminated. The email reads, in part, as follows:

At this point the BCAM conducted her exit interview, and quite frankly hung me out to dry. The allegations she made were petty and unfounded and reading between the lines, the basic gist of it all was that I didn’t want to be her friend.”

[59] In view of the conflicting evidence and lack of contemporaneous evidence, where does the Commission start?

[60] In my view, the commencing point must always be to determine whether the alleged conduct did occur. If the conduct complained of did occur, did it have the effect, as alleged by the recipient employee, or not. The answer to that question essentially is arrived at by an examination of all the circumstances including the impression gained at the hearing.

[61] The particular instances referred to in the exit interview and put to the Applicant in the disciplinary investigation were as follows:

[62] Specific examples in relation to the above “points of concern” (which was the subject heading of the email), are also provided on the following dates:

[63] I do not intend to go into the particulars of each incident but to summarise by saying that the Applicant and Ms Maye gave different evidence as to what occurred during those particular events.

[64] Notwithstanding the different evidence as to what actually occurred, it is notable that neither Ms Maye nor the Employer could provide any contemporaneous documentation on the incidents. Ms Maye states that she kept a “note book” but that was not tendered in evidence. Ms Maye states she made verbal complaints to the BCM and the RM - I received no evidence of a written record of those verbal complaints. Further, I received no written record of the disciplinary investigation setting out the reasons why the Employer formed the view that Mrs Harris was “guilty of bullying” Ms Maye, and that her employment was terminated “due to gross misconduct”. 11

[65] Finally, it is notable that five (5) of the seven (7) particular incidents are 17 months old at the time of the Applicant’s termination. Secondly, the last particular incident occurred six (6) months earlier in which Ms Maye claims that Mrs Harris shouted out “get out of the f***ing file”. 12

[66] I am satisfied that there were certainly differences between Ms Maye and the Applicant. However, having evaluated all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the alleged conduct of Mrs Harris as set out in the disciplinary investigation occurred.

[67] In my view, the Commission has to be watchful that particular incidents (especially where the protagonists disagree) are deemed as causing such feelings as being “humiliated”, “dismissive” and “embarrassing”.

[68] In reaching the conclusion which I have in relation to Mrs Harris’ conduct, I am not dismissing Ms Maye’s complaint as unimportant or inconsequential. However, it would be wrong to ignore the fact that five (5) of the seven (7) particular incidents occurred when Mrs Harris’ husband was in a coma, unable to breathe and unsure whether he would live. To her credit, Mrs Harris gives evidence, “I acknowledge that during this time I may have been a bit short or oversensitive at work”. 13

[69] Ms George gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant. Ms George was employed with the Employer from 11 April 2011 until 4 January 2013. Ms George’s evidence was generally supportive of the Applicant in her interaction with Mrs Harris.

[70] Notwithstanding the similarity of evidence of the Applicant and Ms George, Ms George honestly gave evidence that she did not make any complaints about how Mrs Harris treated Ms Maye. Further, with respect to how Mrs Harris conducted herself in the workplace, she gave the following evidence:

[71] Again, honestly, Ms George concedes that swearing was common in the workplace. 15

[72] Finally, in cross examination, Ms George gives the following evidence:

Would you say Ms Maye is a little bit sensitive?---She’s a sensitive person, yes.” 16

[73] While the Commission does not and should not endorse the view that “anything goes” at the workplace, it is also important not to confirm as bullying and gross misconduct behaviour, as in this case, which is not pursued with any vigour and relates to incidents which occurred some time ago. In my view, the Commission should guard against creating a workplace environment of excessive sensitivity to every misplaced word or conduct. The workplace comprises of persons of different ages, workplace experience and personalities - not divine angels. Employers are required to pursue inappropriate behaviour but need to be mindful that every employee who claims to have been hurt, embarrassed or humiliated does not automatically mean the offending employee is “guilty of bullying” and “gross misconduct”.

[74] I now turn to the remaining criteria.

Notification of the reason for termination of employment - s.387(b)

[75] The Applicant was notified of the reason of the termination of her employment verbally on 20 December 2012. This reason for termination was confirmed in writing by the Employer on 24 December 2012. The reason has been considered in paragraphs [33] to [73].

Opportunity to respond - s.387(c)

[76] I am satisfied, despite the speed in which the investigation took place, that Mrs Harris had the opportunity to respond. In her response, Mrs Harris denied the allegations.

Support person - s.387(d)

[77] There is no dispute that the Applicant attended both disciplinary meetings with a support person present.

Unsatisfactory performance - s.387(e)

[78] The Applicant’s dismissal did not relate to her performance.

Size of the enterprise - s.387(f); and

Human resources - s.387(g)

[79] The Employer employs approximately 6,000 employees and has a specialist Human Resources department. There are clear failures of the then line management which led to Ms Maye’s complaints not being resolved both formally and speedily until after her exit interview.

[80] In contrast, in the disciplinary process Mrs Harris was notified of the specific allegation of bullying at 8:26 am on 20 December 2012, attended a meeting at 11:00 am, the Employer considered her responses to the allegation and she was dismissed at approximately 2:30 pm.

[81] While events can unfold quickly, it does not mean that an employee has been treated unfairly. However, in these circumstances, it was essentially one person’s feelings regarding another person’s behaviour - behaviour, which was in the main, 17 months old and denied. In my view, a more thoughtful approach was essential.

Other matters - s.387(h)

[82] I have not considered any other matters in reaching this decision except to agree with the Employer that the testimonials provided by the Applicant are irrelevant and should not be taken into consideration. However, I disagree with the Employer’s submission that the death of Mrs Harris’ husband is not relevant. The terminal illness and death of one’s spouse is a significant lifecycle event, and is specifically acknowledged in industrial instruments. Besides that, it is part of the humanity in Human Resources.

CONCLUSION

[83] Having considered the submissions and tendered evidence, I am satisfied that Mrs Harris’ dismissal was unfair in accordance with the criteria in s.387 of the FW Act.

[84] Having found that Mrs Harris was unfairly dismissed from her employment, it is necessary to consider the appropriate remedy for that unfairness.

[85] Mrs Harris is not seeking reinstatement, and in any event, I am satisfied for the reasons set out above that it would be inappropriate. Consequently, I consider an award of compensation is appropriate.

COMPENSATION

[86] The relevant parts of s.392 of the FW Act are as follows:

[87] An order for compensation will be made after I have heard from both parties. My Associate will contact both parties regarding the hearing. A hearing does not preclude Mrs Harris, her representative and the Employer communicating without reference to the Fair Work Commission, on a consent order. In the absence of an agreed position, the Commission will make an appropriate order.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr G Pinchen for the Applicant.

Ms K Bowe on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2013:

Perth,

21 May.

 1   Exhibit R5

 2   Exhibit R5

 3   Exhibit R5

 4   Transcript PN198

 5   Transcript PN222-PN226

 6   Transcript PN235

 7   Transcript PN242

 8   Transcript PN291

 9   Transcript PN312-PN314

 10   Exhibit A3(b)

 11   Exhibit A3(c)

 12   Exibit A3(b)

 13   Exhibit A3

 14   Transcript PN415

 15   Transcript PN445

 16   Transcript PN419-PN420

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR538206>