Employer spoke negatively about worker to long-term client
In a recent case before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), the role of gossip in the workplace took centre stage, highlighting its potential to create misunderstandings, escalate tensions, and ultimately lead to the breakdown of employment relationships.
The case involved an apprentice hairdresser who was dismissed from her position, with workplace gossip playing a significant role in the events that led to her termination.
Jorja McGennan started working as an apprentice at Summer Jade Hair Salon, owned by Angela Joy Park, in April 2021.
During the worker's employment, the employer stated that the worker received numerous verbal warnings about the quality of her work, work performance, client complaints, mobile phone usage, and interaction with clients.
Gossip with long-term client
On 13 May 2023, the worker claimed that the employer had spoken negatively about her to one of the salon's long-term clients while she was sick.
The employer acknowledged expressing disappointment with the worker's conduct but denied that it was negative.
On 17 June 2023, the long-term client returned to the salon for an appointment with the worker, and they discussed what the employer had said on 13 May 2023.
On 4 July 2023, a meeting was held between the worker and the employer. During this meeting, the employer provided the worker with her first official warning letter, citing issues such as losing a top-paying client, mobile phone usage, quality of work, client complaints, sick days without doctor's certificates, and talking about herself to clients.
According to records, the warning stated that if the worker did not improve, her employment might be terminated, with another performance review scheduled for 11 July 2023.
Later that day, the employer sent a text message to the worker, stating:
"Clearly this is going nowhere. I believe the best thing is for me to give you two weeks’ notice. I've come to this conclusion because the problems aren't being rectified. It's going round and round with no outcome. Your final date will be Saturday 15th July. Sorry it has come to this."
The worker sought clarification on whether her employment would be terminated, to which the employer confirmed: "Ok jorja I have given you two weeks’ notice to terminate your employment."
The worker subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application with the FWC on the same day.
Workplace gossip caused tension
The FWC said that the “gossip” that originated from a comment made by the employer might have been a passing remark that was misinterpreted by the client.
When the client returned to the salon on 17 June 2023 for an appointment with McGennan, they discussed what Park had said about McGennan. This discussion led to the spread of gossip between McGennan and the long-term client.
The FWC recognized that McGennan might not have had the full context when hearing about Park's comments from the long-term client, which led to tension between McGennan and Park.
The misunderstanding caused by the gossip was a contributing factor to the incident that ultimately led to McGennan's dismissal.
The FWC stated:
"The comments became a misunderstanding through gossip shared between the [worker] and the long-term client. The [worker] may not have had the context when hearing about the comments from the long-term client which led to tension between the [worker] and the [employer]."
The gossip escalated the situation and contributed to the breakdown of the employment relationship.
Worker’s lack of opportunity to improve
The FWC found that the employment relationship ended at the initiative of the employer when the employer texted the worker, stating that she had “two weeks’ notice to terminate [her] employment."
Although the FWC acknowledged the employer's frustration over losing a long-term client, it noted that the incident could have been better managed.
The FWC recognized that the nature of the hairdressing industry requires communication skills with clients who may raise various topics.
The comments made by the employer to the long-term client on 13 June 2023 may have been a passing comment that was misinterpreted by the client, leading to tension between the worker and the employer.
The worker received a formal warning on 4 July 2023 but was not given an opportunity to improve. The FWC noted that alternative solutions could have been proposed by the employer before considering dismissal, and the worker's communication style should have been reevaluated on 11 July 2023, as stated in the written warning notice.
Procedural fairness and proper notice
The FWC also found that the employer was hasty in pressing the worker to apologize to the client and asking her to sign off on the written notice without conducting a proper inquiry.
To assist the worker in rectifying the problem, the written notice should have been provided, and a period of time could have been given for the worker to consider the notice.
The worker was not provided with a full opportunity to respond to the employer's concerns. The written notice and what was likely communicated to the worker was an instruction to rectify the problem with the long-term client, message an apology, and return to the salon. It was communicated as a command without an opportunity for the worker to respond.
In weighing all the factors, the FWC acknowledged the challenges faced by the employer as a small business and the breakdown of the relationship between the worker and the employer.
However, the FWC said that procedural deficiencies could not be overlooked and supported the finding that the worker's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
