'Despite having the resources available,' the employer was 'dysfunctional'
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a worker’s claim that she was unfairly dismissed by her employer. Despite not being raised by the worker in her arguments, the Commission found blame on the employer’s HR department and its failure to properly support the worker, resulting in an “extremely faulted dismissal.”
The worker, Mya Kay Khaing Nyunt, filed a dismissal claim against her employer, International Institute of Business and Technology (Australia) Pty Ltd. On the other hand, the employer argued the worker had not been terminated.
The worker was an academic dean
The worker started working for the employer on 1 September 2019. She was initially hired as a sessional lecturer but took on additional responsibilities as the Vocational Educational Training (VET) coordinator.
On 4 October 2022, the worker received a promotion to the role of academic dean within the organisation. The dispute between the parties arose between 10 October and 13 2022, leading to the termination of the worker's employment.
The employer also terminated her sessional lecturer position, effective 14 October 2022.
At the time of her dismissal, the worker held the position of academic dean with the employer. She provided an email sent by Michelle Lau, the executive assistant, on 4 October 2022, along with a copy of the academic dean contract, supporting her claim of being employed in this role.
The worker argued that on the morning of 10 October 2022, a series of events led to the termination of her employment.
During a conversation with the principal executive officer (PEO), the worker claimed that the said officer terminated her academic dean role immediately.
The worker alleged that the officer displayed rudeness and aggression during the meeting and instructed the worker not to contact the employer’s CEO.
The worker was advised that she could continue her duties as VET coordinator. Furthermore, the PEO allegedly said the worker lacked the qualifications for the academic dean position.
No authority to dismiss the worker?
The worker argued that she spoke to the CEO, and he said that the PEO did not have the authority to dismiss her from the academic dean position. To support her claim that her employment was terminated on 10 October 2022, the worker provided evidence, including emails.
The worker explained that, on 11 October, she emailed the CEO and the PEO, highlighting the events that transpired.
The worker requested clarification on the authority of the PEO to dismiss her without notice or cause. She claimed that the employer was unresponsive.
She sent another email stating her intention to resign from the VET coordinator position but not as the academic dean. This was due to the PEO unilaterally demoting her from the academic dean role to the VET coordinator position without cause.
The employer argued that the worker resigned from the academic dean position during a conversation with the PEO on the morning of 10 October. However, the employer said the said officer is no longer employed and was unavailable to provide evidence in support of the worker's alleged resignation.
‘Stressed and confused’ worker
“It is clear that the days leading up to the end of the [worker's] employment were stressful and confusing,” the FWC said.
“The [employer's] conduct and its staff left the [worker] in a situation where she was clearly unsure of her status or role. The conduct of the [employer] made it apparent that the [worker] was unwanted and undervalued within the organisation.”
“The [PEO] actioned this dismissal [and the employer] had engaged in conduct or a course of conduct which left the [worker] no real choice but to resign,” it added.
Absence of ‘dedicated HR management’
In its investigation, the Commission found that the worker was not adequately supported by the employer’s HR team. “It is painfully evident that the employer, [while] having the benefit of a human resources department, allowed for an extremely flawed dismissal to occur," the FWC said.
“It appears that the [employer's] Human Resources Management department had no involvement or oversight over the conduct of [its] management during this period.”
Additionally, “[the] human resources team has been unable to provide any real evidence in support of the conduct of the [employer] during this period," it said.
“The lack of human resource management support available to the [worker] during this period only added to the confusion of the situation.”
“[And] despite having the resources available to enact a procedurally fair process, the dysfunctional nature of the organisation allowed for such a flawed termination to occur,” it added.
Thus, after the Commission considered all the factors, it said that the worker was unfairly and unjustly dismissed. It then ordered a hearing that will be scheduled at a later time to discuss the appropriate remedy.
