No Comments

Employment Law – Informal Approach Acceptable

Employment Law – Background

Recently, the Fair Work Commission refused an unfair dismissal claim by an employee who was terminated without receiving prior formal warnings.

The case demonstrates the flexibility of the Fair Work Commission in accepting an employer’s informal efforts to address workplace issues.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • in July 2015, the FMG Personnel Services (FMG) inventory controller and his manager discussed his work requirements for the next 12 months
  • it became evident the employee “lacked the necessary skills, capabilities and knowledge to adequately perform his role and that his manner and attitude to customers and internal personnel was unsatisfactory”
  • the manager believed the employee failed to grasp concepts required of his role or prioritise duties
  • the employee was alleged to have failed to comply with business processes. Furthermore, he was considered to be incapable of maintaining effective work relationships
  • from September 2015, a manager ‘informally’ performance managed the employee for a period of 10 months. In this period, the seating arrangement was changed to sit the employee next to the manager for daily coaching and individual training sessions
  • on one occasion, the manager conducted training for the entire team offsite despite the training being targeted only at the employee
  • in July 2016, FMG placed the employee on a performance improvement plan. Following this, the employee emailed HR denying any supposed performance issues
  • customers consequently eventually refused to communicate with the employee
  • consequently, the employee was dismissed in August 2016
  • the employee made a claim for unfair dismissal because he alleged there were no formal warnings, contemporaneous file notes or formal performance management

Employment Law – Fair Work Commission Decision

The Fair Work Commission:

  • held there was a “complete divergence” between the views of FMG and the employee
  • stated “…FMG sought to clearly communicate to [the inventory controller] what their performance expectations were and that FMG diligently endeavoured to assist [the inventory controller] to achieve these expectations”
  • considered FMG had reasonable grounds to conclude an informal approach was likely to be more successful
  • furthermore, accepted FMG had genuine and reasonable concerns about the employee’s ability to comprehend deficiencies in his performance. In addition, the employee believed training and coaching were “ordinary workplace conversations”
  • stated that such “exchanges were intended to be, and are properly characterised as, informal performance management”

The decision is available for you to read through the following hyperlink:

Mr Robert Etienne v FMG Personnel Services Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 1637 (25 May 2017)

Employment law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers: [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Unenforceable Restraints

Employment Law – Background

An ex-employee’s post-termination restraints have been deemed unenforceable by the Supreme Court of Victoria. This case highlights the impact of employer’s actions on the validity of a contract of employment. Furthermore, it highlights the limits of post-employment restraints in employment law. The failure to remunerate an employee can result in a constructive dismissal. Consequently, post-employment restraints may become ineffective.

Post-employment restraints are inserted in contracts of employment to prevent an employee working elsewhere. In addition, it prevents the ex-employee from engaging with former clients for a period of time. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – Ex-Director Restrained by IP

Employment Law – Background

Climate Change Technology P/L (‘CCT’) has sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain a former director and inventor of a thermal energy battery.  The employment law decision raises the importance of documenting relationships.

Employment Law – Facts

In essence:

  • first of all, Dr Patrick Glynn was employed by CCT between 2011 and 2016. He was its principal research officer and director. In addition, Dr Glynn was appointed its chief executive towards the end of his tenure at CCT
  • he invented a thermal energy storage device and assigned a patent to it in 2011. Furthermore, he signed an intellectual property agreement
  • CCT submitted that they spent about $5 million over the last six years on researching and developing the device and associated technology
  • when Dr Glynn quit in 2016, he allegedly retained intellectual property and confidential information in relation to the device. Furthermore, he set up another research and development company and an umbrella company
  • in addition, CCT alleged that Dr Glynn and the companies had been negotiating with third parties he had first dealt with when he was employed at CCT
  • consequently, CCT was granted an interim injunction in March
  • as a result, CCT are seeking the return of intellectual property and confidential information to stop its ‘misuse and dissemination’
  • furthermore, CCT are seeking to prevent Dr Glynn and the companies from exploiting business opportunities which arose while he was director and representative

Employment Law – Decision

Justice Nicholson:

  • noted an intellectual property agreement appeared to be the ‘only express written agreement potentially relevant to the parties’ relationship’
  • noted there was ‘no written employment agreement, no deed of confidentiality or restraint of trade regulating the parties’ relationship or [Dr Glynn’s] post-employment obligations with respect to [CCT] is in evidence’
  • accepted direct supporting evidence Dr Glynn worked full-time as a chief scientist. In addition, he devoted thousands of hours to its project and possessed a significant amount of confidential information about its intellectual property
  • was satisfied there was support for potential findings that CCT was the owner of the intellectual property. Furthermore, such support indicates a large number of digital files were transferred following Dr Glynn’s resignation
  • said it was open to the court to discern from email correspondence that Dr Glynn and the companies had been negotiating with third parties
  • was satisfied that damages would not be an adequate remedy
  • concluded CCT is entitled to an interlocutory injunction. The injunction will restrain Dr Glynn and the two companies from using, exploiting, destroying or altering the ‘project intellectual property and confidential information’
  • the injunction also names entities and individuals whom they are restrained from any dealings relating to the device. Furthermore, it requires the recording of any transactions or dealings in relation to the device

Employment Law – Tips for Employers

Our Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team recommends employers:

  • review this employment law decision
  • seek the assistance of an employment lawyer to understand the impacts of this employment law decision
  • engage an employment lawyer to draft a written employment agreement with a suitable restraint of trade clause relevant to the position
  • engage an employment lawyer to draft a suitable deed of confidentiality
  • update employment contracts in response to this employment law decision
  • consult an employment lawyer if you suspect company confidential information or intellectual property has been misused

Employment Law – More Information

Please call the leading employment lawyers in Parramatta, the Matthews Folbigg Workplace Solutions employment law team on 9635-7966 to speak with one of our employment lawyers. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Employment Law – New Employer Liable in Confidential Information Case

Employment Law – Background

The following is a recent example of where a new employer was stung for the wrongs a new employee committed against their former employer …

Employment Law – The Case

In essence:

  • Lifeplan and Foresters were competitors in the business of funds management and the provision of investment products, principally for the purpose of funeral plans
  • whilst employed by Lifeplan, a manager emailed confidential Lifeplan documents to his personal email address and used these documents to prepare a business plan which he then presented to Foresters with the assistance of another manager
  • at the same time, both managers solicited the business of several funeral companies and service providers in order to secure business for Foresters and themselves
  • the managers used Lifeplan contracts, brochures and other marketing materials to prepare similar documents for themselves, and utilised Lifeplan’s printing company to generate this material
  • Lifeplan commenced proceedings against the managers and Foresters (who by this time employed the managers)

Employment Law – The Decision

The court on appeal held:

  • there could be “no doubt that the board of Foresters was actually aware, had actual knowledge, of the taking and using in breach of duty of confidential information
  • the managers, “with the full knowledge of Foresters, dishonestly breached their duty by, amongst other things utilising confidential information to prepare a business plan for the consideration of the board of Foresters”
  • the Board of Foresters actively used the business plan in its decision-making process and, subsequently, to monitor the performance of the joint venture
  • the business plan disclosed “detailed information, some of which expressly and plainly came from Lifeplan’s records… No honest and reasonable person, not shutting his or her eyes to the obvious, could conclude other than that the document was based on Lifeplan’s confidential information brought by current employees of Lifeplan

Employment Law – The Sting

Foresters’ knowledge and even participation in the manager’s breaches (contrary to the manager’s statutory and fiduciary duties under the Corporations Act), rendered it accessorily liable for the breaches pursuant to section 79 of that legislation. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Deed of Release prevented claim against Employer

Background

In a recent Federal Circuit Court decision, a college teacher who claimed she was suffering from a psychological disability attempted to render her Deed of Release – signed in 2007 – invalid. However, due to a lack of medical evidence her claim was unsuccessful.

The Facts [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Federal Government abolishes the 457 visa

On 18 April 2017, the Australian Federal Government announced the abolition of the subclass 457 visa program, to be replaced by two streams of ‘temporary skill shortage’ work visas for skilled foreign workers. Under the government’s plan, foreign skilled workers would be eligible for one of two visas – a ‘short-term’ two-year visa extendable for a further two years, and a ‘medium-term’ four year visa.

As part of the overhaul, the government plans to substantially reduce the number of eligible occupations and positions subject to work visas. Occupations slated for elimination include farmers, actors, musicians and artists, journalists and media presenters, commissioned fire and police officers, and a variety of administrative managerial positions. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Consultation – Essential for a ‘Genuine Redundancy’

Most employers are generally aware that a ‘genuine redundancy’ is a complete defence to an unfair dismissal claim. However, a redundancy is not rendered ‘genuine’ simply because the redundancy is justified or necessary. The Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the FW Act’) requires employers to undertake a consultation process prior to the implementation of redundancies.

The consultation process requires employers to give employees adequate notice of potential workplace changes (i.e. redundancies), and discuss what steps can be taken to mitigate the effects of the workplace changes. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Swearing Did Not Warrant Summary Dismissal

The Fair Work Commission has awarded an Operations Manager $27,787 in compensation following a finding that swearing at another manager was not sufficient to justify his summary dismissal.

Facts

In essence:

  • On or around July 2016, the Operations Manager had a heated argument with the national WHS Manager of Precepts Services Pty Limited (‘the employer’). The WHS Manager happened to be the wife of the employer’s Managing Director.
  • Prior to the argument, the WHS Manager had a meeting with the Operations Manager’s son – who was employed by the employer as an apprentice electrician – in relation to concerns about his performance.
  • The Operations Manager questioned why he was not invited to attend his son’s performance review meeting, and allegedly said to the WHS manager: “Your sneaky husband made that decision, did he?
  • The WHS manager asked what he had meant by “sneaky”. In response, the Operations Manager referred to a previous phone conversation between his (i.e. the Operations Manager’s) wife and the Managing Director in relation to a dispute over their son’s wages. The Operations Manager relayed that during the phone conversation, the managing director allegedly swore at the Operations Manager’s wife, saying to her “f-ck off, you do not have your facts right”, and then hung up on her.
  • The Operations Manager then allegedly leant over the table of the WHS manager and asked her twice: “How would you f-cking feel if I said get f-cked to you?”
  • In September 2016, the Managing Director directed the Operations Manager to attend a meeting to discuss allegations of misconduct made against him. The Operations Manager attended the meeting, during which he was summarily dismissed.
  • According to the Operations Manager, the Managing Director had a habit of swearing at employees including his own wife (the WHS manager), and regularly punched and kicked walls in the office.

Swearing not sufficient to justify summary dismissal [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Q&A – Dismissal of employees whilst on leave

A common question raised by employers is whether an employee can be dismissed whilst the employee is absent on personal/carer’s leave or annual leave. The question is common because employees often retreat onto leave when the employment relationship becomes dysfunctional, due to stress arising from disciplinary action, or to delay their dismissal.

There is no universal statutory prohibition on dismissing employees who are absent on personal leave or annual leave. However there are significant risks for doing so. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

FWO flags review of abandonment clauses in Awards

The Fair Work Commission has indicated that it will conduct a review of abandonment clauses contained in six modern awards, following the decision of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission in Benias v Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd [2017] FWCFB 38.

In the decision, the Full Bench overturned the decision of Senior Deputy President O’Callaghan ([2016] FWC 6624), who dismissed an employee’s unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the termination was not at the initiative of the employer.

The facts

Section 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009 defines a dismissal as a termination of employment ‘on the employer’s initiative’. The Act provides that where an employee’s employment is not terminated on the employer’s initiative (i.e. a voluntary resignation), that employee is unable to pursue a remedy for Unfair Dismissal. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Misuse of Confidential Information – Evidence relied upon after the fact

In the recent decision of Finemore v CMIB Insurance Services Pty Limited [2016] FWC 8517, an employer successfully relied upon evidence of misuse of its confidential information discovered following the termination of employment, in order to defend itself from an unfair dismissal claim.

The Facts

The Applicant had been employed by the Respondent (a small business employer) for approximately six years, most recently in the role of Account Executive. The Applicant was employed under a written employment contract containing several post-employment obligations including an obligation to preserve the Respondent’s confidential information [...]  READ MORE →