Employee receives compensation for unfair dismissal case following employer’s failure to provide submission
An employee has won compensation from her former employer after the court accepted that she had been unfairly dismissed, with the employer failing to provide any submissions in their defence.
The employee, ‘Ms N’, commenced employment with Melco Engineering Pty Ltd (“Melco”) in January 2023 as a store/logistics coordinator and was subsequently offered and accepted the more senior role of HR/HSE Manager.
Ms N claimed that the events leading to her dismissal began on 15 December 2023 when Melco’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) called her and the company’s Accountant into his office and asked them to terminate the employment of a Trainee Administrator.
In evidence before Commissioner Sharon Durham, Ms N claimed that the COO wanted this done immediately and on ‘any grounds necessary’. She further contended that the COO indicated that he did not care about any ramifications, including providing grounds for an unfair dismissal.
On the same day, a Melco Estimator came into her office and advised her that the COO had just ended his employment with no notice. He asked her some questions, and she responded, but she advised him she would need to speak to the COO as she had no knowledge of the termination.
Later that same day, the COO entered Ms N’s office and advised her employment was terminated with immediate effect. She submitted that the COO had said she could call him at a later date to discuss the reasons. She collected her belongings and returned the company property while the COO supervised her.
Ms N submitted that Melco had never raised any performance issues or concerns with her during her employment.
Despite various attempts by the Commission to engage with Melco, they did not provide any submissions supporting their decision to terminate Ms N.
Commissioner Durham noted earlier decisions outlining the court’s approach when one party does not provide evidence on their behalf, citing, “The second aspect, critical to this appeal, relates to the weight or cogency of the evidence: that is, as a general proposition, evidence, which is not inherently incredible and which is unchallenged, ought to be accepted”.
The Commissioner accepted Ms N’s uncontested evidence regarding her dismissal and that she was not provided with any reason for her dismissal.
Consequently, Commissioner Durham found that there was no valid reason for the dismissal.
In assessing compensation for the unfair dismissal, Commissioner Durham noted that Ms N had secured alternate employment seven weeks after the dismissal and had been paid one week in lieu by Melco. She determined that Ms N was entitled to the maximum amount permissible, being seven weeks’ pay.
KN v Melco Engineering Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1346 (22 May 2024)
For queries about misconduct, defending dismissal claims, or other employment questions, please contact Dean Cameron at Workforce Advisory Lawyers – We Know Employment Law on 1300925 529, 0417 622 178 or via email to dean.cameron@workforceadvisory.com.au.
Disclaimer: This information is provided as general advice on workplace relations and employment law. It does not constitute legal advice, and it is always advisable to seek further information regarding specific workplace issues. Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation.
Ref: 476.1124
