Brisbane-based financial planning business, Howe Ford and Boxer (HFB) Pty Ltd, failed to adhere to the rules of Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2010, when dismissing para-planner, David Priest.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) heard that HFB partner, Terry Ford, had sought advice from a human resources (HR) consultant regarding a restructuring of the practice, after the planning business’s sale performance dropped 49 per cent.
The Commission heard that Ford contacted HR consultant, Claire Harrison, about the possibility of making a staff member redundant on 8 September 2015, six days later she provided a draft letter to the employee for his consideration.
On 16 September 2015, HFB Accounting operations manager, Shona Sherman, requested a meeting with Priest (who had worked for the practice for more than three years), where he was introduced to Harrison, who proceeded to tell him that due to a restructure of the business, his position was no longer required and there was no possibility of him being moved to another role.
The FWC found the accounting and planning practice had failed to consult with Priest prior to the meeting where he was made redundant, as required by the Award.
The Commission said HFB’s “treatment of the applicant on 16 September 20015 was indecent”.
“However… the commission, as presently constituted is not satisfied that, overall, the dismissal of the applicant was harsh, unjust or unreasonable,” the commission said in its ruling.
“In this case, deficiencies in the consultation about the redundancy would not have altered the outcome arrived at by the respondent and provides little support for a finding that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.”
The FWC noted that “by reason of the respondent being a small business (as defined by the FW Act) the applicant was not entitled to a severance or redundancy payment on the termination of his employment”.
“His only entitlement was to notice and the respondent made a payment to him in lieu of notice,” the commission said.
“Understandably the applicant is aggrieved that he did not receive a redundancy payment. Had the respondent not been a small business employer the applicant would have been entitled to seven weeks’ pay.”
