Does an outburst of temper justify dismissal?
Lynette Steele sued a registered club for compensation for unjust dismissal. The dismissal related to repeatedly loud, abusive comments to other members of staff, within the hearing of club patrons, after Ms Steele arrived at work and was unhappy with the state in which her workplace had been left by a prior shift.
Ms Steele agreed that, in part, she was upset because after her first outburst, a co-worker had suggested that she must have been "baking cookies" containing marijuana (which was said to be part of her culinary repertoire).
Ms Steele lost her case because a number of independent witnesses confirmed her loud and abusive behaviour.
FWA referred to an old case which decided that "a single outbreak of bad temper, in company ... with regrettable language" was not in itself a sufficient ground for dismissal. However, FWA decided that:
"While an isolated outburst might be understandable in certain circumstances , it must be emphasised that employees should not, as a general rule, get angry and aggressive about problems in the work place; let alone confront other employees about their own problems....the applicant had a simple and longstanding practice to adopt - contact the duty manager. It was not for her to berate and abuse a fellow employee".
The conclusion that termination was justified was strongly supported by what FWA described as "a truly breathtaking record" showing an "appalling litany of warnings and counselling" (at least 18 warnings) over many years. This included two written warnings in the year prior to the final incident.
Ms Steele objected to these prior warnings being taken into account, because she did not accept the basis for them and had not signed the written warnings. However, FWA held that against such an appalling background, she had to prove that the various warnings were substantially unjustified, not just assert it.
Ms Steele also had the nerve to argue that by giving so many warnings, but not taking any action previously, the company had effectively condoned her conduct, and couldn't complain now. She said that she should've been given a final warning - but FWA rejected that, saying that warnings must mean something to have any practical effect, and to deter others. Requiring another warning would have undermined the club's disciplinary process
Ms Steele also criticized the process by which she was terminated. However, as she had been advised of the issues (and it was not necessary to give her everything in writing), suspended prior to a meeting, and had two representatives with her at the termination meeting, FWA was not impressed by this argument either.
Can any lessons be taken from this case?
As an employer, you need to be wary of terminating employment because of an isolated incident of bad temper (depending on the circumstances of course), particularly if the employee apologises promptly and appropriately.
However, you are entitled to be assertive about disciplinary processes where there are repeated infringements and, indeed, you need to apply those processes in order for your disciplinary processes to have teeth and credibility.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
