No sound or rational basis for terminating employment for loss of trust and confidence

Background

The employee, Ms Anders, commenced employment with the Hutchins School in about 2001. Most recently she was engaged in the position of academic administrator, which required her to undertake both a senior mathematics teaching role and administrative duties. Up until 2013, Ms Anders had enjoyed a good employment record.

During 2013, Ms Anders advised Hutchins School she was struggling with her workload and was subsequently diagnosed with depression and anxiety. During the later half of 2013, Ms Anders was often distressed and anxious at work, required time off and medical intervention.

Ms Anders was relieved of her teaching duties for a week in the final school term of 2013 so she could train co-workers to undertake her administrative duties while she took long service leave during the first term of 2014. In December 2013, the co-workers complained to the school that they could no longer work with Ms Anders. 

On 20 December 2013, Hutchins School advised Ms Anders that she was removed from the Academic Administrator role to her health, and upon her return to work after long service leave, she would undertake a senior classroom teacher role on less pay.

These events led to an extended period of disputation and ongoing deterioration of the relationship between Ms Anders and Hutchins School, including the following occurrences:

• allegations that Ms Anders acted inappropriately toward other employees including the employee who replaced her in the academic administrator role; acting in a uncooperative and disrespectful manner; and making threats and other comments against Hutchins School;

• Ms Anders lodging a dispute with the Fair Work Commission for resolution with Ms Anders ultimately withdrawing the application and agreeing to return to work in the role of senior classroom teacher;

• Ms Anders posting two separate status updates on her Facebook page airing her grievances. Despite Ms Anders not naming the Hutchins School in her updates, the school wrote to Ms Anders requesting her to refrain from making such comments;

• allegations that Ms Anders was discussing and commenting on her industrial issues in her communications with staff members other than those who were authorised by Hutchins  School;

• Ms Anders refusing to meet with the deputy headmaster without another person present;

• allegations by Ms Anders regarding Hutchins School treatment of her family and access to emergency personal leave when her husband became critically ill in early October 2014; and

• Ms Anders lodging a discrimination complaint against Hutchins School in late October 2014.

Ultimately, in November 2014, Hutchins School terminated Ms Anders' employment on the basis that it had lost 'trust and confidence' in her and that her ongoing employment was 'impossible'. 

Ms Anders made an application to the Fair Work Commission on the basis that she had been unfairly dismissed.

Decision

The Fair Work Commission found Ms Anders was unfairly dismissed and there was no valid reason for the termination of her employment as the allegations against her were either unsubstantiated or not serious enough to warrant the termination of her employment. On this basis, there was no sound or rational basis for finding a loss of trust and confidence in Ms Anders.

In making the decision, the Fair Work Commission also took into account other relevant matters such as:

• Ms Anders' good employment history with Hutchins School;

• her diagnosis of mental illness, including an observation that Hutchins School should have taken this into account when considering Ms Anders interactions with others;

• the alteration of Ms Anders' employment on 20 December 2013 prior to Hutchins School obtaining any medical evidence;

• the poor approach and inaccuracies in the investigations undertaken by Hutchins School;

• the inaction of management in managing the interpersonal difficulties, resulting in a downward spiral of the employment relationship; and

• Ms Anders' husband becoming critically ill in the weeks immediately prior to Hutchins School's first allegations letter.

In making its decision, the Fair Work Commission observed:

"… it was incumbent on the employer to be active and manage disputes as they arose in the workplace. It is not an option for an employer to be wilfully blind to interpersonal issues within the workplace or to fail to act on them, particularly when there was a clear grievance policy in existence."

As a final point, the Fair Work Commission confirmed it had taken into account the Facebook posts made by Ms Anders and found she had shown a lack of judgement in this regard and had been appropriately warned by Hutchins School regarding her conduct.

In making its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that reinstatement of Ms Anders to the workplace was impracticable and the matter has been adjourned to a later date to determine compensation.

Lessons

The decision highlights the importance of an employer managing workplace issues by taking proactive steps to stop disputes between employees before management is faced with the inevitable decision to terminate one or both of the employees. Some of these steps include investigations into the allegations, disciplinary action, provision of training and employee assistance programs.

If you would like to know more about this case or managing personality conflicts generally, please contact National Workplace Lawyers on  +61 2 9233 3989.

National Workplace Lawyers

Note — this is for information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to render legal advice.