{"id":931,"date":"2018-07-20T02:39:12","date_gmt":"2018-07-20T02:39:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/workplaceculturematters.com.au\/?p=931"},"modified":"2018-07-20T02:41:22","modified_gmt":"2018-07-20T02:41:22","slug":"why-method-of-dismissal-needs-to-be-reviewed-by-the-commission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/workn.net.au\/?p=931","title":{"rendered":"Why method of dismissal needs to be reviewed by the Commission"},"content":{"rendered":"

According to a recent case of Ms Anita Cachia v Scobel Pty Ltd (2018) FWC 2648<\/a>, the Fair\u00a0Work Commission confirmed that employees should only be dismissed by phone, text or\u00a0email in \u201crare circumstances\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In all other instances, the decision to dismiss an employee\u00a0should be communicated in person. This decision is hugely surprising given that we are in\u00a02018; an age encompassed by an abundance of technological devices providing us with various means of\u00a0communication.<\/p>\n

Despite this, termination by means other than in person is still frowned upon\u00a0in the eyes of the Commission.\u00a0The Commission\u2019s view stands despite agreeing with the employer that the employee\u2019s\u00a0conduct had amounted to serious misconduct justifying her dismissal and that the employer\u00a0had gone \u201cfurther than the [Small Business] Code\u201d requires for a dismissal of this kind.<\/p>\n

On\u00a0this basis, the Commission had actually thrown out the employee\u2019s unfair dismissal claim.<\/p>\n

So what amounts to a \u201crare circumstance\u201d?<\/p>\n

The Commission did not provide a definitive explanation of what amounts to a \u201crare\u00a0circumstance\u201d, but did say that dismissal does not need to be communicated in person in\u00a0instances \u201cwhen an employer believes a dismissed employee might be a threat to the safety\u00a0of his\/her employees or when the employee expressly did not want a face-to-face meeting to\u00a0hear the outcome of any disciplinary process\u201d.<\/p>\n

Referring to an earlier case of Knutson v Chesson Pty Ltd t\/a Pay Per Click (2018) FWC\u00a02080 at [47], the Commission also agreed that the following instances would be acceptable
\nfor dismissal to be communicated other than in person – \u201cgenuine apprehension of physical\u00a0violence or geographical impediment\u201d.<\/p>\n

As can be seen, the above examples are limited in nature, which means that dismissal of an\u00a0employee in 90% of circumstances will still need to be in person. This is even when the
\ndismissed employee is a \u201cbully\u201d and facing serious allegations of:<\/p>\n