Fair Work Commission

Villani v Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FWA 141 (Gooley C, 12 January 2011).

Permission to appeal refused by Full Bench in PR508383 (Kaufman SDP, Sams DP, Gay C, 12 April 2011) and Permission to appeal refused by the Full Court of the Federal Court in [2011] FCAFC 155 (2 December 2011).

The employer sent letters to the employee's lawyers requesting the provision of further information about a potential conflict of interest. The employee failed to provide any information or respond to the requests.

It was held that the employee was properly notified of the reason for termination even though the employee was not advised that a failure to respond may result in the termination of his employment. The termination was found not to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Ehssan v Infoxchange Australia [2011] FWA 5491 (Gay C, 25 August 2011).

Permission to appeal refused in [2011] FWAFB 6747 (O'Callaghan, Ives DP, Blair C, 29 September 2011).

The employee argued that the meetings held to discuss the alleged misconduct were too short and did not give him a proper opportunity to respond.

It was held that the employee was notified of the reason for dismissal and was afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The application was dismissed.

Leigh v Nestle Australia Ltd [2010] FWA 4744 (Drake SDP, 25 June 2010).

Permission to appeal refused in Employee W v Employer N [2010] FWAFB 7802 (Watson VP, O'Callaghan SDP, Spencer C, 22 October 2010), [(2010) 202 IR 12].

The employee was accused of misconduct including the harassment of colleagues. He was also convicted of several criminal offences.

Even though there was a valid reason for dismissal based on the criminal convictions, the employee was not notified of the reason for the termination of his employment nor was he given an opportunity to respond. Compensation was awarded.

Sabeto v Waterloo Car Centre Pty Ltd (2003) 123 IR 222.

An employee, when questioned about unaccounted for cash, left work and was unable to be contacted. On appeal the Full Bench found that although there was a valid reason for dismissal based on capacity, the employer failed to notify the employee of that reason. The Full Bench held that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and compensation was ordered.

Clarke v Formfile Infosoft Pty Ltd (2003) 122 IR 348.

The employees were made redundant due to a downturn in business. The employees were notified that they were being dismissed due to redundancy but were not notified of the reason why they were selected for redundancy.

It was held that the employees were not properly notified of the reason for their dismissals before the dismissals took effect.

Stewart v Sea Change Conveyancing Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 1896 (Gooley C, 19 March 2012).

The employee was dismissed after she made derogatory comments about her employer to a colleague.

It was held that the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable because the employee was not notified of the reason for her dismissal before the decision to dismiss was made.

De Silva v ExxonMobil Chemical Australia Pty Ltd, PR910623 (AIRC, Lacy SDP, 9 January 2000).

The employee was dismissed for poor performance. The employer provided the reason for dismissal to the employee after the decision to dismiss had already been made.

It was concluded that, while there were procedural deficiencies, they were not sufficient to render the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Gooch v Proware Pty Ltd T/A TSM (The Service Manager) [2012] FWA 10626 (Cargill C, 20 December 2012).

The employee was dismissed for being absent from work on personal leave after her medical certificate had expired. The employer dismissed the employee by email without attempting to contact the employee first.

It was found that the employee was not notified of the reason for her dismissal. It was held that it was not satisfactory that the employer gave the employee an opportunity to discuss the dismissal after it had taken effect.