Victimisation results in compensation

Cases

Victimisation results in compensation

Compensation was awarded to an employee victimised by the employer: changing hours unreasonably; unfairly alleging poor work performance; intimidating the employee by contacting the employee's relatives; and issuing unfounded correspondence complaining about work performance.

WantToReadMore

Get unlimited access to all of our content.

Compensation was awarded to an employee victimised by the employer: changing hours unreasonably; unfairly alleging poor work performance; intimidating the employee by contacting the employee's relatives; and issuing unfounded correspondence complaining about work performance.

The NSW IRC awarded the employee almost $24,000 plus costs.

The employer was a small law firm. The commission found there had been a deliberate and disgraceful campaign to force the applicant's resignation. Hours of work had changed without proper notice. There had been improper contact with relatives. Wages had not been paid on time. In addition, the employer refused to accept the employee's claims that she was medically unfit due to stress.

Relentless campaign

Deputy President Sams concluded:

'In my opinion, the respondent embarked on a deliberate, disgraceful and relentless campaign to force the applicant's resignation after she had written to the respondent on 31 August 2004 advising that she had contacted the Department of Industrial Relations to complain about late payment of wages. Her resignation was also sought as a means of seeking the discontinuance of her victimisation claim against the respondent.

The applicant's hours of work were changed in early September 2004. There was direct conflict of evidence as to whether there was a meeting on 19 August to discuss the change of hours…'

There were a number of procedural issues which give rise to a conclusion that the applicant's dismissal was procedurally unfair - including:

  • The employer did not inform the applicant of the purpose of the disciplinary meeting on 2 March 2005.
  • The employer did not offer the applicant a witness to be present or to have her solicitor in attendance.
  • The employer did not inform the applicant that the meeting might conclude with her employment being terminated.
  • The employer told the applicant her conduct was an issue, but given no opportunity to improve.

Swaran Lata Kumar and Macquarie Partnership Lawyers [2005] NSWIRComm 202 - Sams DP - 14/

Related

Personality clash and racial taunt lead to litigation

Victimising an ‘unfair contract’ claimant
 

Post details