In an interesting turn of events, a former probation and parole officer working under the Northern Territory Correctional Services (NTCS) within the Department of Justice, won an unfair dismissal claim. Despite Fair Work Australia (FWA) establishing the Department’s justifiable reason for dismissal, the claimant triumphed due to a marked absence of procedural fairness. This intricate case underscored the criticality of maintaining fair procedures, especially in disciplinary proceedings and dismissals.

The Crucial Case of Ms. Jones

During her recruitment process, Ms. Jones filled a “Criminal History and Integrity Screening” form. This required her to declare if she was “associated” with anyone with a criminal record. Despite her husband’s criminal record and parole status, Ms. Jones failed to disclose this information. A few months later, when the Department discovered the oversight, they initiated disciplinary provisions under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act (PSEMA).

The Department executed the disciplinary process entirely through written communications spanning October 2011 to January 2012. This approach was deemed as an “extended dismissal by correspondence”. The Department emphasized that Ms. Jones’s omission affected their trust and confidence in her, and could lead to termination. However, Ms. Jones insisted that she understood the term “associates” to refer to business relationships, not family or spouse. She asserted her openness and transparency throughout the process.

Despite these allegations, Ms. Jones was not suspended but was forced to continue working. She was repeatedly asked to respond to the allegations within a time limit, without any personal meetings or investigations.

Unpacking the Decision and its Implications

Commissioner Steel, adjudicating the case, concurred that Ms. Jones’s failure to declare her husband’s criminal record was a valid reason for dismissal. However, he pointed out a significant lack of procedural fairness. Commissioner Steel underlined that Ms. Jones had to endure an extended process while fulfilling her duties without the support of personal meetings or investigations by her employer. This, he stated, resulted in “unnecessary effects” on her.

This case provides valuable insights into the factors Fair Work Australia may consider when assessing what constitutes a “reasonable opportunity” for employees to respond to unfavorable information or decisions.

These factors include the provision of face-to-face meetings and discussions, and the opportunity for the employee to have a support person present. The case further emphasizes that while complying with mandatory requirements surrounding written communications

Furthermore, the case delineates crucial principles for disciplinary processes namely:

• Evaluate the possibility of suspension, particularly when “serious misconduct” is alleged
• Consider their duty of care towards an employee, given the potential impact of the process on the employee’s health and well-being
• Avoid stating that investigations are unnecessary or unwarranted within correspondence

This landmark case underlines the imperative of procedural fairness in dismissal cases and disciplinary processes. By adhering to these principles, organizations can safeguard themselves against unfair dismissal claims while promoting a fair and transparent work environment.

Call Frontline Employment Defenders Now so we can help you 1300 089 353 or visit https://www.fled.com.au