Mulroney V. Alfred James & Sons Pty Ltd.

1447 Words3 Pages

This is a group assessment for the subject HRM101 which involved us to understand, comprehend and evaluate one of the cases at the Fair Works Commission. The case assigned to our group is Mulroney v Alfred James & Sons Pty Ltd. First of all would like to thank our lecturer, Mr Dominic Lococo for giving us this wonderful opportunity to work as part of a group and also helping us whenever needed.
All the group members put in equal effort towards understanding and writing this assignment.
The case assigned to us is an application for relief from unfair dismissal.
The Applicant - Christopher John Mulroney
The Respondent - Alfred James & Sons Pty Ltd
The applicant worked as a funeral consultant with the respondent.

We would be presenting this …show more content…

Christopher John Mulroney (the Applicant) was dismissed from his employment as a Funeral Consultant with Alfred James & Sons Pty Ltd (the Respondent) on misconduct grounds related to an incident on 17 May 2015 involving another employee, Ms Diane Sloan. The dismissal took effect on 27 May 2015. The Respondent conducts a funeral business providing funeral planning and related services to families of deceased persons. Mr Philip Murray is employed by the Respondent as its Funeral Manager. Mulroney was employed as a Funeral Consultant. Ms Sloan is employed by the Respondent as a Funeral Co-ordinator and was the Applicant’s supervisor on 17 May 2015.
The incident which led to Mulroney’s termination occurred on Sunday, 17 May 2015. At approximately 12:00 noon on 17 May 2015 the Applicant was observed by Ms Sloan to be walking past the office. 13 Whilst doing so, Ms Sloan asked the Applicant what he was having for lunch.14 The Applicant said words to the effect that “I don’t know, what are the girls having?” Ms Sloan told the Applicant that the other employees had left to get their lunch as they could not find the Applicant.15 According to the evidence given by Ms Sloan, the …show more content…

In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:

(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that the FWC considers

Open Document