X
Ending a relationship is difficult and often raises many thorny issues, especially if it involves an executive or senior employee. The associated financial, commercial and reputational risks can be significant. The related processes must be managed carefully observing all relevant legal obligations to avoid claims of unlawful termination or unfair dismissal or application for general protection. Redundancies incident upon a corporate restructure, merger or insolvency require the observance of a fair and legal process as well. Understanding your rights and obligations throughout the entire process is crucial in making and taking the right decisions and actions and minimising your risks. Our highly experienced lawyers who are deeply familiar with the key concerns and issues faced by a business in dealing with terminations, dismissals and redundancies can provide you with practical and effective advice and solutions throughout the entire process.

Professionals

Yukio Hayashi

Yukio Hayashi

Partner

Kenneth Hong

Kenneth Hong

Partner

John Kim

John Kim

Partner

Daisuke Ueda

Daisuke Ueda

Senior Associate

Gina Jung

Gina Jung

Associate

Laura Oh

Laura Oh

Lawyer

MORE

Insights

MORE >


Workplace & Employment

Unfair dismissal - immediate termination

Q: I worked as a waiter at a restaurant for about two years. Yesterday, my employer suddenly said, "Did you steal cash from the cash register last night? Surveillance cameras caught you. You are fired. Get out now." I was fired without being given any opportunity to explain my situation. Is this an unfair dismissal? (waiter, 25-year-old male) A: In principle, if an employee commits a serious misconduct in connection with his or her job, the employer can dismiss the employee immediately without notice. However, it is sometimes difficult to determine what action would result in an immediate dismissal. Often issues arise when there is no evidence proving the serious misconduct, and for that reason, an employee sues for unfair dismissal. Such theft is a “serious misconduct” under the employment law, which can be justified as a reason for immediate dismissal. However, if the employee was falsely accused and fired unilaterally without being given the opportunity for clarification, this would likely be an unfair dismissal. In this case, the employer should show the CCTV footage to the employee, and give the employee the opportunity to explain his reasons. Once the theft is confirmed, then the employer needs to decide whether to terminate the employment contract. Furthermore, "serious misconduct" includes not only theft and embezzlement, but also fraud, violence in the workplace, drunkenness, use of illegal drugs, violation of work regulations, conduct that threatens the safety of the workplace and that significantly impair the productivity and reputation of the company. An example of a case of serious misconduct would be one in which an employee sends emails with abusive words to their colleagues and business partners. However, if your company is a “small business” with fewer than 15 employees, Australian employment law provides a provision that will make it easier to terminate employment contracts including the immediate dismissal of an employee due to a serious misconduct. It is presumed that for a small business, a serious misconduct has been committed if there is sufficient suspicion of illegal conduct. In one case there was a discussion over whether an employer sufficiently investigated the serious misconduct and whether the employee was given a reasonable opportunity to explain his situation. In that case, the court held that it was not an unfair dismissal on the grounds that a small business was not required to investigate an employee’s conduct as a big company would be. Moreover, in cases in which an employee was dismissed due to excessive use of illegal drugs outside of working hours, despite such dismissal being normally unfair, the dismissal was justified because of the employer’s small business status. In the current case, if the restaurant is a small business and the surveillance camera footage satisfies “sufficient suspicion”, it is likely that an immediate dismissal would be justified.