i've made videos before about unfair dismissal cases and about the common very very common
mistake that employers make and that is that they look at the alleged wrongdoing
and make a decision perhaps to terminate the employee
terminate their employment and that's the end of the matter and they're satisfied that the employee
was guilty of gross misconduct and on that basis they justified the decision to terminate
but this is a flawed process it's a flawed line of thinking because every employee
no matter what they have done no matter what the allegations are entitled to natural justice and
fair procedures in this particular case and again it's just another example of this and
there are countless examples of it dawn meets terminators or sacked an employee the employee
was out sick at the time but the employee worked he was pictured working on the farm while sick
the employer obviously felt they were justified that this was grossman's conduct
justified in terminating they engaged in or engaged the services of a private detective
to take pictures of him working after he was injured and he was pictured working on his farm
employer assumed or taught that they were justified they went through some sort of
a process but quite frankly it didn't cut the mustard from the perspective of the wrc and the
wrc adjudicator held that the whole process was lacking in fair procedures and natural justice
taught that or opined that the decision to terminate was disproportionate and that they
should have considered an alternative short of this missile and just to summarize the judiciary
officer end of murphy found that the employee mr james had not been properly informed of the nature
of the allegations of gross misconduct against him when he was suspended in advance of the first
disciplinary meeting he said that mr james was confronted at the meeting with allegations about
a pattern of absenteeism and that he had been working on his private farm while sick
but the failure to provide advanced details was in breach of donate's own disciplinary
policy he wrote adding that mr james was totally unaware of the precise nature
of the allegations the adjudicator also says he had grave concerns in relation to the manner
in which the allegations of gross misconduct were presented to the employee at the investigation and
discipline hearings it's clear that there's a lack of clarity throughout this process
in relation to the precise nature and extent of the charges that were being pursued against him
the adjudicator also found that there were procedural shortcomings and irregularities in the
investigation and disciplinary props process this raised doubts about the impartiality and independ
independence of the process and consequently the fairness of the process the adjudicator wrote
and the adjudicator also said that dawn meets did not consider or make allowances for any
mitigating factors put forward by the complainant or alternatives to dismissal there was no dispute
that mr james had carried out tasks on his farm mr murphy wrote but don meats had scanned regard
for their former employees explanations he found dismissing mr james was disproportionate
and did not fall within the range of reasonable responses open to the company and therefore
bought substantively and procedurally unfair the adjudicator awarded ten thousand to the
complainant for the unfair dismissal and a further two and a half thousand six weeks pay for failing
to provide statutory notice entitlements under the minimum notice in terms of employment act
you might have first reading of this case or coming across it you might say what was the
employer supposed to do here's a man who's out sick and now we discover that he's working on the
farm and he's selling hay to us the employer they engaged the services of a private detective they
carried out covert surveillance they took plenty of photographs of the employee working and so on
but the fundamental conclusion the fundamental thing that you must take from this is that
every employee is entitled to fair procedures and natural justice why because it's a constitutional
right the employer must go through a procedure a process that's fair and that's not just a box
taking exercise but that is fundamentally fair and gives the employee fair procedures natural justice
a fair say and deal with him fairly that according to the wrc is not what happened in this case
and even though on the face of it and looking at the headline you might say that dawn meets
the employer was perfectly entitled to dismiss this man the fact of the matter is
the adjudicator at the wrc held against the company and the employee succeeded and has been
awarded over 12 grand for unfair dismissal and minimum notice again time after time i can get you
countless examples of cases like this where the employer may appear to have been justified
in doing what they did but they failed to follow procedure and if you don't follow a procedure as
an employer you're certainly leaving yourself open to a claim against you for unfair dismissal which
has a very good prospect of success hope you find this video useful if you do i would appreciate
if you give it the thumbs up down below and you may be interested in subscribing to my youtube
channel if you are just hit the bell icon and hit the subscribe button down below thanks a lot
you