Employer permitted to dismiss receptionist despite her caring responsibilities

The Fair Work Commission has upheld an employer’s decision to dismiss a receptionist who was trying to balance her work with caring for a grandson with special needs. 

The Commission held the small business had been “exceptionally flexible and considerate” but the situation had become unworkable.

The receptionist unable to work her full hours for most of the five-year period, due to caring responsibilities for her grandson and the required medical and support services appointments

The Commission found the employer:

• had considered her family life;
• her need for time off;
• alterations to work hours;
• allowed staff to have children in the office; and
• allowed her to divert calls to her mobile where she cared for her grandson at home.

Despite having made all these accommodations, the hours and reliability of the receptionist meant her irregular hours and attendance had a “significant negative impact”, in conjunction with the recent financial strain the employee had been under, attendance was “no longer sustainable”.

In April, the receptionist had been put on notice that if she could not perform all her hours of work in the office during set hours, it would employ another person. The receptionist undertook to meet this commitment but the hours she was available to work soon thereafter declined.

The employer had refused a request from the receptionist, proposing to change and reduce some of her hours to take her grandson to therapies. In response, the receptionist sought to take four to six months of unpaid leave to get things organised for him.

In the same email sent at 6pm on a Sunday, the receptionist also stated that she was taking annual leave for the whole week, due to increased stress and anxiety.

On the Monday, the employer advised her they could not approve the leave. However, the receptionist provided them with a medical certificate, and notified them that she was “currently on medical leave and believe that I am able to use annual leave to cover short failings in sick leave”.

The employer dismissed her the same day due to "capacity" as she "could not work full-time and couldn't work part-time in a way that worked for the business". Further, the employer informed the Commission and informing the Commission that their decision was not motivated by the leave request or sick leave.

Commissioner Bernadette O’Neill stated there was no question that the receptionist was “doing the best she could” coming into work at very early hours of the morning to complete additional tasks, and "trying very hard to balance and meet the competing demands on her time".

While the employer had been "exceptionally flexible and considerate", the Commissioner decided there "came a point where for the sake of the business and everyone's employment, the situation became untenable".

Despite it being "unfortunate", the Commissioner said the employer had acted in an "entirely reasonably" way, and the dismissal of the receptionist was in accordance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.

The Commissioner advised that the employer gave the receptionist notice that they were intending to discuss her employment; why her job was at risk; and provided her with a couple of days to think about whether she could and wanted to commit to working full-time.

The employer then dismissed the receptionist, as they could not come to a sustainable agreement.

The Commissioner further added that even if the dismissal was not in accordance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, she would still not have deemed it to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Please reach out to our Workplace Relations Team on (07) 3872 2222 or at workplacerelations@amaq.com.au, if you have any further questions or queries about flexible working arrangements, Award compliance or workplace law.