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
1. As the person, responsible for labor relations at Barrera Recycling Company, articulate a case to support your contention that there was just cause for the discharge of Erin McNamara.
On the other hand, we can infer that the reason was because they genuinely did not find sufficient evidence in order to terminate any relationship with the Suspect Client, and that they took the "wrong decision" to fire Mrs. Sharkey in order to stop the investigation. Moreover, we could say that the defendants wanted to prevent a possible lawsuit by the Suspect Client as a result of an unjustifiably business
There was evidence shown that the unfair dismissal requirements were the furthermost conflicting and inconsistent from the manager’s perspective. The Fair Work Act applied unfair dismissal requirements for entirely workers, regardless of the population of workers in the business (Chapman, 2015). The Fair Work Act presents two cases that dismissal could be reasonable, including other dismissal and summary dismissal. In the first case, the law offers a sequence of stages such as concluded checklist, copies of notice, declaration of dismissal and a witness announcement with signature that managers must follow with the intention to reduce the problem (Chapman, 2015). In the second case, managers may dismiss a worker without notice due to theft or fraud. As the consequence, the amount of cases in relation to unfair dismissal has risen significantly since the Fair Work Act implemented as law. In addition to the growing records of cases in relation to unfair dismissal, the judgements from Fair Work Australia showed some contradicting clarifications of the Fair Work Act (Chapman, 2015). According to an example, a business in Albury- Wodonga had dismissed an employee due to the breach of occupational and safety laws after an employee continually denied to wear safety glasses at work (Sloan, 2011). However, after checking the worker’s reinstatement, the Fair Work Australia stated that the worker had a family and he has found it challenging to
Mr. Milhauser was employed with Minco in 2006. Between 2007 and 2009 he served three military deployments. In 2008, Minco experienced a decline in orders continuing into 2009. Minco cut costs including delaying purchases, reducing overtime, and making pay cuts. Despite these measures, in March of 2009 Minco eliminated 18 positions. This process was not successful and did not abate the decline and it was determined that 32 more positional cuts would be made in June. These cuts were determined by job duties, technical expertise, with employee attitude and work ethic being considered; seniority not being a factor. On June 3, 2009, Mr. Milhauser was terminated as part of the cutbacks. He filed two claims, the first being Discrimination and the second, Failure to provide reemployment as required by the USERRA. His first claim denied, he appealed the second claim regarding the USERRA.
Jones alleged that the governor made unwanted sexual advances towards her which she explicitly rejected (Motos, 1998). Consequently, Jones reported she suffered adverse employment action by her superiors, who “treated her rudely and changed her job responsibilities” (Motos, 1998).
At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...
The partner basically wore his feelings towards her “on his sleeve” when he begin to make comments about women’s commitment levels, compared to men. The partner also made a comment regarding another attorney requesting to become partner in the firm after her return from maternity leave. It is unsure if that attorney was let go, however, “firing an employer for becoming pregnant is a discriminatory conduct” (VonBergen, Mawer & Howard,
Facts of the case: Anna’s immediate supervisor, Michael, repeatedly required that she have “closed door” meetings with him. Closed-door meetings violate company policy. Other employees were aware of these closed-door meetings and, as a result, rumors began to spread that Anna and Michael were having an office romance. In fact, in these closed-door meetings Michael tried to convince Anna to lend him money, a practice that also violates company policy. Anna repeatedly denied the request and Michael stopped asking. However, the rumors continued and affected Anna deeply. She was treated like an outcast by her co-workers. Anna asked Michael to clear up the rumors, but he found them amusing. Anna had two evaluations where she scored low points for “integrity” and “interpersonal relations” as a consequence of the rumors. She was passed over for two promotions for which she applied where her skills and experience were superior to the employees who were promoted. She filed an action against her employer on the ground that her supervisor had created a hostile work environment because he refused to stop the rumors.
Mr. Darcy Adair was an employee for 13 years at Forensic Psychiatric Institute of BC. He worked as a Forensic Security Officer. The case is about his return to his employment after leaving his position for disability for a year in 2014. Mr. Adair was seeking proper accommodation so he could be treated equally in terms of job status and earnings just before he left the position in 2014.
In the scenario, Tracy discussed the history of her exposure to Permalco. Tracey explained how she recalled a young male recruiter, positioned at her college, during a career fair. Tracey recalled the presentation explaining the financial advantages and career opportunities at the company which was an attraction to her. Tracey also explained that the people she was hired with are no longer present at the company. Tracey also described an uncomfortable environment she adjusts to, that lacks female and minority presences. Permalco lacks an employee balance due to the high turnover rates. Employees who have left or was laid off by the company consisted of young employers which may have been a minority or female gender. Furthermore, the company
In the case when victims are asked why they left their job, they should clearly and professionally explain the circumstances (Hawkins,
This letter is to inform you we will be processing payment of the claim for John Doe within the next five business days. As you know, there is a pending assignment to to the funeral home for $1,538.75, which has since been reassigned to another company. Since we received assignment forms on November 22, 2017 signed by you and your sister, we will be mailing a check in the amount of $1,538.75 directly to the funeral home in settlement of the assigned portion of the policy. The balance of the proceeds will be distributed to the named beneficiaries in accordance with the beneficiary designation on file.
Increasing job insecurity and excessive managerial prerogative to “fire at will” were regarded as the wo main problems with WorkChoices. The Fair Work Act introduced the notion of a “ fair dismissal” system that sets out the steps that an employer should go through before dismissing an employee.
Decisions about termination can be based on performance with the right evidence, as long as they are not based on the missing of work due to injury. How should you proceed? If you have a ‘rotten egg’ employee who is now taking a leave of absence, review your disciplinary records and confirm you have enough evidence for termination, even in an ‘At Will’ state, it’s important to cover your grounds in cases that are not black and white.
Smith, the employee, was terminated for swearing at his supervisor via a series of phone conversations. The commission found that his language didn’t warrant termination, though they acknowledged that it was unacceptable behaviour. The bottom line is that it isn’t uncommon for swearing to occur in that industry and firing him was deemed unfair by the Commission. Verbal Attacks