Compensation for sacked Bottle-o Manager despite customer’s “convincing” complaint

A Tasmanian bottle shop manager has been awarded $3,000 compensation by the Fair Work Commission after finding his dismissal for misconduct in March 2021 lacked procedural fairness, notwithstanding the “truthful” and “convincing” evidence of a customer that he had made “unwelcome comments of a sexual nature” to her.

Although Commissioner Harper-Greenwell accepted the account of the customer that, on 11 March 2021, the manager asked her, “would you like a root hehehe receipt”, while he “laughed and leered at her in an attempt to make her feel uncomfortable” and determined this provided a valid reason for termination, the Commissioner also accepted the manager, “meant no harm or malice and he may have thought he was being funny”. However, Commissioner Harper-Greenwell impressed that even if the manager had meant no harm, he “continued to offend customers” which was “unacceptable”.

Despite finding the manager’s conduct provided a valid reason for termination, the Commissioner was highly critical of the “procedurally disastrous” process adopted by the employer in effecting the manager’s dismissal.

In evaluating the manager’s termination, the Commissioner noted the employer conducted a “flawed” investigation process, speaking only to the customer after she lodged the complaint on 15 March, and failed to provide the manager any relevant details of the alleged complaint, the identity of the complainant or show him CCTV footage of the alleged incident. The manager was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the concerns against him, instead, when he advised he had a doctor’s appointment and would be going on “stress leave”, Commissioner Harper-Greenwell observed the employer “acted quickly to dismiss [the manager] without affording him a reasonable opportunity to reply to the allegations”. The manager, who had over 5 years’ service, was dismissed for “serious misconduct” on 19 March, with the dismissal having immediate effect.

Commissioner Harper-Greenwell concluded the manager’s dismissal was unfair finding the employer “had made up his mind that [the manager] was guilty of the alleged conduct before he had even commenced the investigation”. In addition, the Commissioner noted there was “no show-cause process followed”, meaning the manager “was not provided with any form of procedural fairness”.

“He was not afforded the full details of the complaint, was denied the information that should have been made available to him and, in its haste to dismiss him, [the employer] failed to provide [the manager] with an opportunity to respond to the reasons which it relied on for the termination of his employment”, Commissioner Harper-Greenwell commented.

Finding that, had the manager “not been dismissed in such an abrupt manner and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations”, he would have remained in employment for a further period of two weeks. Commissioner Harper-Greenwell subsequently awarded the manager two weeks’ wages as compensation, amounting to $3,000 plus superannuation.

Bridge v Globe Bottleshops Pty Ltd T/A Wellington Beer Wine and Spirits [2021] FWC 3153 (31 August 2021)