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
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
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.
The character of the Fair Work Commission is to ensure that the negotiating process and industrial activity are carried out in accordance to the Commonwealth workplace laws. Bargaining representatives of workers must contact the Fair Work Commission before they want to take industrial action to assist their claims (Australian Government,
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).
This employee was required to undergo numerous surgical procedures, take medication, and suffered from mixed personality disorders. This caused her to miss 960 days of work between January 1994 to July 2001 when she was employed at Hydro-Quebec. Because of her disabilities and conditions, her employer was obligated to adjust her working conditions and provide her with light tasks but she was eventually dismissed from her job in July 2001, due to being absent since February of that year. During those months, her medical doctor recommended that she stop working for an indefinite period, which allowed her employer to dismiss her on the grounds that she unable to work on a regular basis and that no improvements of her attendance was possible. The grievor filed a complaint to the Quebec Court of Appeal as she alleged that her dismissal was unjustifiable, but her case was dismissed as the Court ruled that an employer can terminate an employee if their contract was violated. The employee appealed her case at The Supreme Court of
The case study discussed the unfair treatment of a female attorney employed at a law firm. A disparate treatment claim came about due to the female attorney’s perception, that she was wrongfully terminated and discriminated against, by the partners at the firm. As the judge on this disparate treatment claim case, there are several occurrences that lean in support of the plaintiff.
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
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.
In the case when victims are asked why they left their job, they should clearly and professionally explain the circumstances (Hawkins,
A tribunal was attended on Monday 10th March in Holborn, hearings start between 10am and 10:30am, allowing chairwoman reasonable time (up to half an hour generally) to read up on evidence and the reading lists provided by both the claimant and respondent.
Ms. Baker’s previous performance as the Director and annual reviews potentially support her claim. Furthermore, the company and managers were contradictory in their explanations for Ms. Baker’s discipline and termination, providing evidence that the reasons tendered were not genuine and used to cover up inappropriate behavior, methods and practices of the
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