FWC finds para-planner’s dismissal not ‘unfair’

dismissal regulations

15 February 2016
| By Nicholas |
image
image
expand image

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."

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

One foot out the door

Just 15 per cent of advisers said they may exit the industry over the next few years, Thats about 2,300 advisers! if ...

1 hour 39 minutes ago
Craig Offenhauser

I think Mr. Toohey's conclusions and extrapolations are "currently" merging on the typical SMSF issue of "....prone to ...

2 days 20 hours ago
Random

What happened to the 700,000 million of MLC if $1.2 Billion was migrated to Expand but Expand had only 512 Million in in...

4 days 1 hour ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

10 months ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months 2 weeks ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

10 months ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND