By Mike Toten Freelance Writer

An engineer who refused to share work methods technology with co-workers, and who created some teamwork problems by working remotely from overseas and arguing with co-workers, has nevertheless been awarded $20,000 for unfair dismissal. The case is another example of an employer being penalised for not following a correct and fair dismissal process. 

 

Facts of case

When the employee was hired, he brought with him a specialised 3D automation and modelling technique. That had influenced the company to hire him. 

A dispute arose over whether he had been told to train other employees to use the technology. The employee claimed that he was not told, but the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found that he was.

A further problem was that the employee took two long absences overseas for personal reasons. He worked from overseas for about 40% of his total time as an employee, but the seven-hour time difference caused problems with work team collaboration. That combined with his refusal to share the technical information with co-workers led the employer to conclude that he was “not a team player”. 

Eventually, disputes arose. The employee questioned the qualifications and competency of some of his work colleagues, and when the employer announced plans to set up a dedicated work project space with all employees working on the project in the same office, he refused to relocate to it. After a heated argument, he was then summarily dismissed. The reasons were (1) failing to comply with a lawful and reasonable instruction, and (2) behaving in aggressive manner that posed a risk to health and safety.

 

Decision

The FWC noted the employee’s “problematic” conduct, and discounted the amount of compensation awarded to him by $10,000 because of it. However, it found that the employer dismissed him without first giving him the reasons for it or an opportunity to respond to any misconduct allegations. He should have first received counselling in how to conduct himself during meetings. 

The FWC did not consider that the argument had posed a “serious and imminent risk” to health and safety, but nevertheless estimated that his employment would at most have a lasted a further three months.

It awarded compensation of $20,000 for unfair dismissal.

 

What this means for employers

This case is another example of an employer acting too hastily to get rid of a “troublesome” employee and not following a fair process before dismissing him. The amount awarded reflected the extra length of time his employment would have lasted if a fair process had been followed.

 

Read the judgment

Roy Sabag v D&T Hydraulics and Engineering Pty Ltd - [2024] FWC 3336 | Fair Work Commission