Court backs employer over firing manager who was accused of abused colleagues

A former finance and operations manager who a judge ruled lied on her CV has had her adverse action claim thrown out by the Federal Circuit Court after she was dismissed for shouting at fellow staff members and reducing one to tears.

The manager started working at HealthEngine in June 2013 but soon became aggressive towards her fellow employees, according to a judgment handed down in July.

HealthEngine is a directory for doctors and other health professionals and also allows customers to make online bookings.

The court was told the manager shouted during a staff meeting in August 2013, HealthEngine’s chief executive sat down with her to explain that this sort of behaviour was unacceptable in the workplace.

The incident had left a fellow staff member in tears and the court heard the manager promised to treat people better in the future.

However, HealthEngine said she continued to be aggressive and critical of other employees.

After being spoken to again, the court heard the manager took time off work without any evidence of feeling unwell.

Her employment was then terminated on 22 August 2013 because of the way she treated other people in the workplace.

The manager then launched a series of adverse action claims, arguing she was dismissed because she had claimed her workplace rights to a safe working environment and reasonable working hours.

In one claim she said she had been injured at work, while in another she said the company altered her responsibilities and “grossly” extended her working hours.

After five days of hearings, Judge Antoni Lucev dismissed the manager’s adverse action claims, ruling that her allegations did not stack up.

The manager gave evidence to the court she had a master of commerce and a law degree on her CV when applying for the job, however, the judge said it was not clear if the degrees were completed.

“The court has concluded that all of the claims made by [the manager] in these proceedings have failed to be made out,” Lucev said.

“It follows that [the manager] has no entitlement to any of the relief claimed.”

The manager told SmartCompany she is disappointed with the decision and believes it is “erroneous”. She said she would not be appealing the decision at this stage “despite being unhappy with the decision”.

She says she holds a juris doctor in law from The University of Sydney. She says she did not complete her undergraduate law degree at UWS and discontinued the degree after four years of study. She believes her “studies and qualifications were fairly represented” on her CV.

She also says she does not recommend appearing self-represented in workplace law proceedings, as she did and “apologises for any ill-effects caused by the matter”.

Warwick Ryan, workplace relations expert and Swaab Attorneys partner, told SmartCompany the reason why HealthEngine was successful in this case was because the company had a positive workplace culture.

“On the evidence to the court, this woman really disrupted the value matrix and value proposition for that entity but they stuck to their values,” Ryan says.

“They were consistent and willing to take steps to ensure the culture of the workplace reflected those values, even though you got the sense that the leaders of the business were not conflict-driven people.”

Ryan says HealthEngine presented a strong case because it had a number of meetings with the former employee to discuss her performance, even though multiple warnings were not necessary because she was on probation.

“It emphasises the need in probation of making it clear at the point why you’re terminating them if there’s any suggestion of a discriminatory reason or workplace right sitting in the background,” he says.

“You don’t necessarily need to afford them due process in a probationary period, but it’s good if there’s documentary evidence.”

Ryan also points out that in these sorts of cases, costs are generally not awarded, which is something business owners need to be wary of due to the expensive nature of court cases.

“These people defended the matter all the way through, as is their right and they did it well,” he says.

“But this case would have cost them between $150,000 to $200,000 to run.”

SmartCompany contacted HealthEngine but the company declined to comment.

*This article was updated at 5.04pm on October 20, 2015, to include comments from the manager and to clarify a number of details of the court’s judgment. This article was updated again on August 1, 2016.