City of Sydney RSL slugged $13,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal
The City of Sydney RSL has been ordered to pay more than $13,000 in compensation when the Fair Work Commission found she was dismissed from her role after they cut her rostered shifts.
The RSL hotly contested the claims that the female worker who undertook cash-handling duties for approximately 30 hours each week was unfairly dismissed.
The issue revolved around the worker being warned twice in late 2016 and early 2017 about some discrepancies in the till amounts.
The first warning came when the till turned out to be short by $188.75. The worker put it down to a failure to properly record a patron’s gaming pay-out. The second time, there was $100 not in from the till. In that case, the worker was unable to explain the missing money.
The Commission was told the case was referred to the RSL’s HR department.
As a result, it was decided the worker needed further training in how to adequately handle cash. At the same time, however, her roster was reduced to one shift a week as she couldn’t work “change box” shifts in the interim.
So the employee met the HR manager and claims she said she would go home after learning about her roster changes.
The business disputed this. It says the worker said she would resign.
The worker rejected this claim from the business, she said she never planned to resign. She said the company had effectively terminated her employment by not providing her with her regular shifts.
“The applicant steadfastly rejected that she ever used the word “resign”, and further, she asserted that there was no suggestion of retraining for money handling procedures mentioned during the meeting,” the Commission noted in its ruling.
In the end, presiding Fair Work Commissioner Ian Cambridge said that any question about the employee’s use of the word “resign” was irrelevant. The outcome of the case, he said, hinged on whether the worker could “reject the changed employment conditions” discussed in the initial meeting.
“On any reasonable and objective contemplation, an indefinite reduction in remuneration of at least 75% would represent a repudiation of the employment which the applicant could properly reject. Consequently, it was the actions of the employer which brought the employment to an end,” Cambridge said in his decision.
“Unfortunately, the employer failed to appreciate that its decision to remove the applicant from all rostered engagements involving work in the “change box” involved such significant change to the employment as to amount to dismissal from employment.”
The Commissioner ruled that the worker was dismissed “without valid reason involving established misconduct or capacity inadequacy”, and that the dismissal was “implemented by way of an unreasonable and unjust process”.
The $13,566 compensation 16 weeks lost remuneration.
by Leon Gettler, September 1st 2017
