We are often asked by employers whether or not they can summarily dismiss an employee for various reasons ranging from persistent poor performance to blatant disobedience. Termination on this basis is also referred to as ‘termination without notice’.
To summarily dismiss an employee:
- the employee must have committed an act of serious misconduct; and
- the employer must afford the employee procedural fairness.
What is serious misconduct?
The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) defines serious misconduct in section 12 as having the meaning prescribed by regulations. Regulation 1.07(2) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009(Cth)(Regulations) define serious misconduct as including:
- wilful or deliberate behaviour by an employee that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment;
- conduct that causes serious and imminent risk to the health or safety of a person; or
- conduct that causes serious and imminent risk to the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business;
- the employee, in the course of the employee’s employment, engaging in:
- theft;
- fraud; or
- assault;
- the employee being intoxicated at work; and
- the employee refusing to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that is consistent with the employee’s contract of employment.
Examples of actions by employees that amount to serious misconduct
Below are some examples of conduct by employees which have been held to satisfy Regulation 1.07(2):
- Regulation 1.07(2)(a) – wilful or deliberate behaviour by an employee that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment, such as:
- sending emails to clients of current employer about your new business venture that will be competing with business of employer;
- using a company car without authorisation or without a drivers licence;[2]
- Regulation 1.07(2)(b) – conduct that causes serious and imminent risk to the health or safety of a person, such as:
- Regulation 1.07(2)(c) – conduct that causes serious and imminent risk to the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business, such as:
- Regulation 1.07(2)(d) -an employee, in the course of employment engaging in:
- Regulation 1.07(2)(e) – Intoxication at work
- Consuming alcohol to the degree that the employee is so impaired that they are unfit to be entrusted with their duties or with any duty that they may be called upon to perform;[10]
- Regulation 1.07(2)(f) – the employee refusing to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that is consistent with the employee’s contract of employment. Examples include:
Procedural fairness
After identifying conduct by the employee that may amount to serious misconduct, it is necessary to give the employee the opportunity to respond to the allegations (Procedural Fairness). So that the employee cannot claim that they were denied natural justice or Procedural Fairness, the employer must allow the employee to address the allegations, by talking steps such as:
- arranging to meet with the employee, allowing them to have a support person present;
- presenting the employee with all the facts and evidence supporting the allegations of serious misconduct;
- allowing the employee to respond to the allegations; and
- providing the employee with a letter of termination, confirming the facts and evidence supporting the finding of serious misconduct and any response the employee gave.
After providing the employee with the opportunity to respond to your allegations, provided that there is no reasonable explanation, then the employer may be able to terminate the employee for serious misconduct.
Links and further references
Cases
Applicant v Respondent [2014] FWC 3189
Bradford Pedley v IPMS Pty Ltd T/A peckvonhartel [2013] FWC 4282
Burns v Sacred Heart Mission Inc [2014] FWC 3188
Hansen v Mt Martha Community Learning Centre Inc [2015] FCA 1099
Parmalat Food Products Pty Ltd v Wililo [2011] FWAFB 1166
Plessas v Philip Foxman T/A Botany Building Recyclers Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 5910
Powell v Hunter Water Corporation [2012] FWA 6938
Rose v Tahmoor Coal Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 4291
Sheikholeslami v University of NSW (No.3) [2008] FMCA 35
Steri-Flow Filtration Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd v Craig Erskine [2013] FWCFB 1943
Tymoszuk v Comfortdelgro Cabcharge Pty Ltd T/As Westbus Region 1 [2013] FWC 3507
Further information about employment law for employers
As an employer, if you find yourself in a position where you consider that it is necessary to summarily dismiss an employee for serious misconduct, please contact us for an obligation free and confidential discussion.
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
[2] Plessas v Philip Foxman T/A Botany Building Recyclers Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 5910 at [41]-[42].
[3] Rose v Tahmoor Coal Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 4291.
[4] Tymoszuk v Comfortdelgro Cabcharge Pty Ltd T/As Westbus Region 1 [2013] FWC 3507 at [43].
[5] Parmalat Food Products Pty Ltd v Wililo [2011] FWAFB 1166.
[6] Applicant v Respondent [2014] FWC 3189 at [37]-[40].
[7] Glenn Howie v The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals T/A RSCPA-ACT [2014] FWC 2771 at [65].
[8] Steri-Flow Filtration Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd v Craig Erskine [2013] FWCFB 1943.
[9] DP World Sydney Limited v Lambley [2012] FWAFB 4810.
[10] Fair Work Regulations 2009 Reg 1.07(3)(b) and 1.07(5).
[11] Sheikholeslami v University of NSW (No.3) [2008] FMCA 35 at [115] – [125].
[12] Powell v Hunter Water Corporation [2012] FWA 6938.
[13] Burns v Sacred Heart Mission Inc [2014] FWC 3188.
Related insights about employment law for employers
-
The “right to disconnect” from modern workplaces
The right to disconnect, as contained in Part 8 of the Fair Work Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill (Bill), gives employees the right to refuse contact from their employers (or related parties) outside of their working hours, unless the refusal is unreasonable. The changes in Part 8 amend various sections of the Fair Work…
-
Paid family and domestic violence leave for small business owners
The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Act 2022 (Cth) (Amending Act) provides that employers must provide 10 days paid leave to all employees. Part-time and casuals also eligible. Confidentiality and ability to take leave in single and separate periods must be respected.
-
Pay secrecy laws come into effect
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment Act 2022 (Cth) has been passed, introducing workplace laws and changing existing rules. Employers must now ensure job ads include minimum wage info and protect confidential info when determining pay. This article provides an overview of the implications.
-
Employers to provide for paid domestic violence leave
The Federal Government has proposed a bill that provides eligible employees with paid family and domestic violence leave. Find out more about the proposed changes and how they could affect your business.
-
Ex-employees and IP protection
Ex-employees can be a threat to a company’s intellectual property, but with the right contractual clauses, employers can protect their trademarks, copyright, patent, and design. Learn more about how to safeguard your company’s intellectual property.
-
High Court clarifies meaning of casual employment
The High Court has ruled on the definition of a casual employee – but what does it mean for your employment relationship?
-
Costs in unfair dismissal applications – part 4
This article examines the rare but possible situation in which an employee could be liable to pay the employer’s costs in an Application under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Find out more about this situation and the case of Ewan Chapman v Ignis Labs Pty Ltd t/a Ignis Labs [2021] FWCFB 932.
-
Costs in unfair dismissal applications – part 3
This article looks at when costs orders can be imposed on a party to an unfair dismissal application, with an example of how costs orders can be imposed on a complainant employee.
-
Costs in unfair dismissal applications – part 2
The case of Clair Petersen v Kizuri Capital Pty Ltd, Maycorp Pty Ltd and Cricklewood Capital Pty Ltd T/A Allpet Products [2021] FWC 526 highlights the importance of parties engaging meaningfully and reasonably throughout the unfair dismissal process. A costs order was made against an employer who ignored settlement offers, demonstrating that such behaviour can…
