Chapter 7
Unfair Dismissal,
Discrimination &
Harassment
pp.209-219
Definition
 Unfair dismissal: where an employer dismisses an
employee in circumstances the law defines to be unfair.
Changes over time
1994: UD
laws
introduced
1997:
Laws
changed
to reflect
‘fair go all
round’
concept
2006:
More
changes
 No unfair dismissal laws until 1994
 1994 – Federal and State Governments enacted laws that
regulated the dismissal of employees
 Employers complained, arguing that the laws:
 Made it virtually impossible to dismiss unsatisfactory
employees
 Were making unemployment worse because businesses were
scared of taking on more staff in case they could not legally
get rid of incompetent ones
 1997 – ‘fair go all round’ introduced
 2006 – UD laws limited to employers of more than 100 staff,
extended maximum probation to 6 months (from 3)
Aspects of the law relating to
unfair dismissal
 Three aspects of the law related to unfair dismissal:
1. Good reasons for dismissal
2. Proper notice
3. Procedural fairness
1.Good reasons for dismissal
 Employers must have valid reasons for dismissing an
employee
 These could include:
 Constantly being late for work
 Not competent to do the job
 Stealing
 Drunk/drugged
 Courts have found that not telling an employer
something relevant to whether the worker should be
employed is also a valid reason for dismissal
Commissioner of Police v
Hollingworth (1997) ALLR 90-578
 An employee applied to be a police officer
 She did not tell the Police Department she had previously
worked as a stripper and prostitute
 She was hired, but when the Department found out, she
was dismissed
 She sued for unfair dismissal – but lost
 The court found she had been dishonest in concealing her
past employment
 Her past conduct was deemed relevant to her position as a
police officer
 She appealed to Supreme Court, which ordered she be
reinstated and awarded compensation
 Section 7, Anti-Discrimination
Act 1991
 Dismissal for any other reason
is not prohibited by the law
 Is it fair, then, for someone to
be dismissed because of their
physical appearance?
 In unfair dismissal cases, it is up to the employer to
prove that the dismissal was fair
 How this is unusual?
 Usually, it is the complainant (plaintiff) that has to
prove their case, not the defendant
 Until recently, the law required that employer to prove
two things:
 That there were valid reasons for the dismissal
 That no invalid reasons played a part in the dismissal.
 If they could not prove these things, they lost the case.
Stojanovic v The
Commonwealth Club Ltd
 Facts: The assistant manager of a sporting club was
pregnant and was called into the manager’s office to
discuss possible arrangements during her leave.
 During the meeting, she became angry and swore at her
boss.
 She was sacked.
 Issue: Was this legal dismissal?
 Verdict & Reason: The court found that in the
circumstances, the employer could not prove the dismissal
was a fair one. She was paid $8,500 compensation.
 The court considered the two factors stated on the
previous slide.
 The said because the club could NOT prove the woman was
NOT sacked because she was pregnant, they lost the case.
 This makes for a difficult situation.
 How could an employer sack an incompetent employee
who happened to be pregnant?
 Was the law creating a protected class of employees
who employers were scared of sacking in case they were
sued for unfair dismissal?
 The law changed in 1997
 Employers still have the onus of proof
 They need only prove that some valid reasons existed
for the employee being dismissed
 They do not have to prove that there were no valid
reasons
Tisdell v Woolworths Ltd;
Morgan v Email Ltd (1997)
 The can find that a dismissal was harsh or unreasonable
 In the past employees have been sacked for smoking at
work, in breach of express no smoking policies
 This was found to be unfair dismissal as it was a first
time offence
 Remember, the general rule is that dismissal can only be
for valid reasons
 However, the law creates two exceptions to this general
rule:
 If the prohibited reason affects the ability of the
employee to do their job, it is legal to dismiss them for
that reason
 If the employer is a religious institution conducted in
accordance with the doctrines or teachings of a particular
religion, the employer can dismiss the employee in good
faith to preserve these beliefs
2.Proper Notice
 In previous times, an employer was able to dismiss an
employee without any notice
 It was seen that this was unfair and the law now
protects most employees from being sacked on the spot
 The notice that employees get depends on how long
they have been working for the employer
 An extra week’s notice must be given if the employee is
over 45, provided they have completed at least two
years continuous service with the employer
Employee’s length of
continuous service
with employer
Minimum period of
notice
< 1 year 1 week
1-3 years 2 weeks
3-5 years 3 weeks
> 5 years 4 weeks
 The notice periods are only guaranteed minimum
periods
 It is possible that an award/workplace agreement
applying to an employee provides for longer periods of
notice
 If you are not given the correct amount of notice you
can sue for compensation
 The law also says that in certain cases notice is not
required
 This is when it would not be practical to give employees
notice, due to reasons why they are being sacked
 The law says that if an employee is being sacked
because of misconduct, notice need not be given
 Misconduct includes theft, assault or fraud
 It is legal for an employer to give an employee wages
instead of notice
 For example, an employee who has been working
somewhere for 6 years and earns $500 per week could
be given $2,000 ($500/week x 4 weeks) and ask the
employee not to come back
 This might be because they are worried the employee
might try to cause damage to the business in some way
3.Procedural Fairness
 Originally, there were no laws setting out the
procedures that had to be followed before an employee
was dismiss
 In 1994 this changed so that the dismissal process had to
be procedurally fair to the employee
 These procedures included that the employee:
 Had to be told of the reason for the proposed dismissal
 Had to be given a chance to dispute the reasons
 Many people thought that if an employee wanted to
legally dismiss an employee for incompetence, the
employee would need to be given several warnings so
that they could improve their performance
 The laws were being interpreted in favour of the
employee
 The law was that if the employer missed even one of
the steps laid down in the law regarding procedural
fairness, they were in the wrong
 Many now believed the law had gone to far in favour of
the employee
 In 1997 the laws changed again
 To reflect the concept of ‘a fair go all round’
 This meant that if a step was missed in the processes of
being sacked, it wasn’t automatically classed as unfair
 It was still a consideration in deciding the case, but not
a conclusive factor
 2006 – the introduction of WorkChoices made it tougher
for employees to sue for unfair dismissal
 Employers of under 100 staff were exempt from unfair
dismissal laws and the ma
 Maximum probationary period was changed from 3 to 6
months
 2007 – this law was repealed when Kevin Rudd became
Prime Minister (the first time, before Julia stabbed him
in the back and then he stabbed her in the back in
return…)
Recent example of unfair
dismissal
 This was in America, but still…what do you think?

4. Unfair Dismissal

  • 1.
  • 2.
    Definition  Unfair dismissal:where an employer dismisses an employee in circumstances the law defines to be unfair.
  • 3.
    Changes over time 1994:UD laws introduced 1997: Laws changed to reflect ‘fair go all round’ concept 2006: More changes
  • 4.
     No unfairdismissal laws until 1994  1994 – Federal and State Governments enacted laws that regulated the dismissal of employees  Employers complained, arguing that the laws:  Made it virtually impossible to dismiss unsatisfactory employees  Were making unemployment worse because businesses were scared of taking on more staff in case they could not legally get rid of incompetent ones  1997 – ‘fair go all round’ introduced  2006 – UD laws limited to employers of more than 100 staff, extended maximum probation to 6 months (from 3)
  • 5.
    Aspects of thelaw relating to unfair dismissal  Three aspects of the law related to unfair dismissal: 1. Good reasons for dismissal 2. Proper notice 3. Procedural fairness
  • 6.
    1.Good reasons fordismissal  Employers must have valid reasons for dismissing an employee  These could include:  Constantly being late for work  Not competent to do the job  Stealing  Drunk/drugged
  • 7.
     Courts havefound that not telling an employer something relevant to whether the worker should be employed is also a valid reason for dismissal
  • 8.
    Commissioner of Policev Hollingworth (1997) ALLR 90-578  An employee applied to be a police officer  She did not tell the Police Department she had previously worked as a stripper and prostitute  She was hired, but when the Department found out, she was dismissed  She sued for unfair dismissal – but lost  The court found she had been dishonest in concealing her past employment  Her past conduct was deemed relevant to her position as a police officer  She appealed to Supreme Court, which ordered she be reinstated and awarded compensation
  • 9.
     Section 7,Anti-Discrimination Act 1991  Dismissal for any other reason is not prohibited by the law  Is it fair, then, for someone to be dismissed because of their physical appearance?
  • 10.
     In unfairdismissal cases, it is up to the employer to prove that the dismissal was fair  How this is unusual?  Usually, it is the complainant (plaintiff) that has to prove their case, not the defendant
  • 11.
     Until recently,the law required that employer to prove two things:  That there were valid reasons for the dismissal  That no invalid reasons played a part in the dismissal.  If they could not prove these things, they lost the case.
  • 12.
    Stojanovic v The CommonwealthClub Ltd  Facts: The assistant manager of a sporting club was pregnant and was called into the manager’s office to discuss possible arrangements during her leave.  During the meeting, she became angry and swore at her boss.  She was sacked.  Issue: Was this legal dismissal?  Verdict & Reason: The court found that in the circumstances, the employer could not prove the dismissal was a fair one. She was paid $8,500 compensation.  The court considered the two factors stated on the previous slide.  The said because the club could NOT prove the woman was NOT sacked because she was pregnant, they lost the case.
  • 13.
     This makesfor a difficult situation.  How could an employer sack an incompetent employee who happened to be pregnant?  Was the law creating a protected class of employees who employers were scared of sacking in case they were sued for unfair dismissal?
  • 14.
     The lawchanged in 1997  Employers still have the onus of proof  They need only prove that some valid reasons existed for the employee being dismissed  They do not have to prove that there were no valid reasons
  • 15.
    Tisdell v WoolworthsLtd; Morgan v Email Ltd (1997)  The can find that a dismissal was harsh or unreasonable  In the past employees have been sacked for smoking at work, in breach of express no smoking policies  This was found to be unfair dismissal as it was a first time offence
  • 16.
     Remember, thegeneral rule is that dismissal can only be for valid reasons  However, the law creates two exceptions to this general rule:  If the prohibited reason affects the ability of the employee to do their job, it is legal to dismiss them for that reason  If the employer is a religious institution conducted in accordance with the doctrines or teachings of a particular religion, the employer can dismiss the employee in good faith to preserve these beliefs
  • 17.
    2.Proper Notice  Inprevious times, an employer was able to dismiss an employee without any notice  It was seen that this was unfair and the law now protects most employees from being sacked on the spot
  • 18.
     The noticethat employees get depends on how long they have been working for the employer  An extra week’s notice must be given if the employee is over 45, provided they have completed at least two years continuous service with the employer Employee’s length of continuous service with employer Minimum period of notice < 1 year 1 week 1-3 years 2 weeks 3-5 years 3 weeks > 5 years 4 weeks
  • 19.
     The noticeperiods are only guaranteed minimum periods  It is possible that an award/workplace agreement applying to an employee provides for longer periods of notice  If you are not given the correct amount of notice you can sue for compensation
  • 20.
     The lawalso says that in certain cases notice is not required  This is when it would not be practical to give employees notice, due to reasons why they are being sacked  The law says that if an employee is being sacked because of misconduct, notice need not be given  Misconduct includes theft, assault or fraud
  • 21.
     It islegal for an employer to give an employee wages instead of notice  For example, an employee who has been working somewhere for 6 years and earns $500 per week could be given $2,000 ($500/week x 4 weeks) and ask the employee not to come back  This might be because they are worried the employee might try to cause damage to the business in some way
  • 22.
    3.Procedural Fairness  Originally,there were no laws setting out the procedures that had to be followed before an employee was dismiss  In 1994 this changed so that the dismissal process had to be procedurally fair to the employee  These procedures included that the employee:  Had to be told of the reason for the proposed dismissal  Had to be given a chance to dispute the reasons
  • 23.
     Many peoplethought that if an employee wanted to legally dismiss an employee for incompetence, the employee would need to be given several warnings so that they could improve their performance  The laws were being interpreted in favour of the employee  The law was that if the employer missed even one of the steps laid down in the law regarding procedural fairness, they were in the wrong
  • 24.
     Many nowbelieved the law had gone to far in favour of the employee  In 1997 the laws changed again  To reflect the concept of ‘a fair go all round’  This meant that if a step was missed in the processes of being sacked, it wasn’t automatically classed as unfair  It was still a consideration in deciding the case, but not a conclusive factor
  • 25.
     2006 –the introduction of WorkChoices made it tougher for employees to sue for unfair dismissal  Employers of under 100 staff were exempt from unfair dismissal laws and the ma  Maximum probationary period was changed from 3 to 6 months  2007 – this law was repealed when Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister (the first time, before Julia stabbed him in the back and then he stabbed her in the back in return…)
  • 26.
    Recent example ofunfair dismissal  This was in America, but still…what do you think?