What happens when workplace transitions go wrong? Case reveals key lessons
The Fair Work Commission recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker's role underwent significant changes after his employer, a street-sweeping business, lost a major council contract.
The worker had been with the company for ten years, starting as a driver in 2014 before being promoted to supervisor in 2019.
After losing the Strathfield Council contract in January 2024, he was expected to take on various new duties, leading to disputes about work arrangements.
During an unscheduled meeting on July 8, 2024, his employment ended in circumstances that became the central issue of the case. The business unit manager claimed it was a mutual termination, while the worker maintained he was unfairly dismissed.
The worker initially drove street sweepers for various customers. In 2019, after winning a competitive selection process open to both internal and external candidates, he was promoted to supervisor for the Strathfield Council contract, receiving a higher rate of pay.
When another company won the Strathfield Council tender in January 2024, the business unit manager told the worker they would understand if he wanted to join the new contractor. The new company only offered a driver position, which he declined.
From February 2024, the worker performed approximately 40 different jobs for his employer, including training drivers, customer liaison, equipment delivery, and night shift work. The Fair Work Commission noted these tasks often required him to make special arrangements for his family responsibilities.
A key dispute arose about whether proper procedures were followed when changing the worker's role. The FWC found: "There is no evidence that [the employer] consulted [the worker] about the significant changes to his employment as it was required to under the Waste Management Award 2020."
The business unit manager argued that he had conversations with the worker about "ongoing employment and how he could support the business on new projects." These included specialty trucks, a contract at Macquarie University, and pavement cleaning supervision.
However, the Commission observed: "Although on one hand, [the employer] is to be commended for keeping [the worker] employed rather than terminating his employment due to redundancy, the situation appears to have been poorly handled."
The critical meeting on July 8, 2024, involved the worker, the business unit manager, and the logistics manager. Neither advance notice nor the opportunity to bring a support person was provided.
During this meeting, after being criticized, the worker made a comment about future troubleshooting needs. The business unit manager then allegedly said "leave your keys and go" and confirmed it was a dismissal when directly asked.
While the business unit manager later sent a letter claiming mutual termination, the worker had already filed an unfair dismissal claim within three days of the meeting.
The Fair Work Commission concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable, stating: "There was no valid reason for the dismissal... [the worker] did not receive any warnings about alleged unsatisfactory performance."
The Commission emphasized that despite the employer's claims, evidence showed "[the worker] willingly undertook an extensive variety of work in response to requests by [the employer] and was prepared to work at a range of locations and times, often at the expense of spending time with his family."
The Commission awarded compensation of $33,913.07 gross plus superannuation. While the worker found new employment through a labour hire company, his new position paid approximately 60 percent of his previous salary.