Employer tells FWC that worker resigned
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with the dismissal claim of a worker who was fired after reporting his disagreements with his supervisor.
On July 6, 2023, the worker, Troy Daniel Barnett filed a claim for a general protections dispute related to his dismissal. Barnett said that he was terminated from his role at Sunwater Limited on July 4, 2023. He was a dam maintenance operator at the Glenlyon Dam.
With nearly two decades of experience in high-risk occupations, including scaffolding, rigging, and machine operations in mining and construction, Barnett said he holds a firm understanding of safety procedures on job sites. He denied the employer's allegations that he operated in an unsafe manner.
Challenging relationship with supervisor
Barnett reportedly had a challenging relationship with his supervisor, John Buda, describing him as “controlling, accusatory, and condescending.”
Despite raising concerns about Buda's behaviour, Barnett said he felt ignored. A disagreement between them prompted Barnett to email the employer's operations manager, David Towner, expressing his inability to tolerate Buda's attitude and inquiring about the resignation process.
A meeting was arranged with Towner and other management, where Barnett raised concerns about Buda. In a subsequent meeting, Barnett rescinded his resignation, expressing a desire to repair his relationship with Buda. Notably, he chose not to file a formal complaint against him.
On July 4, 2023, Towner visited the Glenlyon Dam site, and Buda was noticeably absent. Barnett, engaged in his regular tasks, sensed a change. According to Barnett, Towner hinted at an impending decision, suggesting that "the writing on the wall" was apparent.
Barnett said that Buda's absence that day was intentional, realising he was being dismissed. In further discussions, Towner said that HR had made the decision to dismiss him.
Barnett claimed that Towner acknowledged a lack of support for a new employee in a remote location, expressing regret for the employer's insufficient support.
When questioned about specific reasons for termination, Barnett said Towner was vague, and said he believed his dismissal was linked to his complaint of bullying and abuse by Buda.
Terminated at employer’s initiative
The FWC explained that a “termination at the initiative of the employer” is when two criteria are satisfied:
• the employer’s action “directly and consequentially” results in the termination of employment; and
• had the employer not taken this action, the employee would have remained employed.
For there to be a “termination at the initiative of the employer” there must be action by the employer that “either intends to bring the relationship to an end or has that probable result.”
The FWC found that the employer’s actions led the worker to believe that he was terminated from employment. It said that it was able to communicate that he was fired after the operations manager confirmed that it was the HR’s decision to dismiss him.
Coupled with how the employer also notified him about the news, the FWC said there was no alternative explanation that might sway the worker to believe that he would remain employed. Thus, it said the worker was dismissed at the employer’s initiative.
