The applicant, who was employed as a Graduate Community Safety Officer by the respondent, was terminated on the grounds of performance issues.  The applicant’s unfair dismissal claim maintained that her performance was satisfactory throughout her employment, the performance management process was not conducted fairly, and described the manner of her termination as excessive and humiliating.  The respondent argued that the applicant was given multiple opportunities to improve her performance through a fair performance management process which she failed to utilise. 

During the proceedings testimony given both by the applicant and her supervisors, detailed the nature of her work, challenges faced, as well as the dynamics of her relationship with her managers.  The respondent contended that the performance expectations of the applicant were based on those set out in the relevant industrial agreement, and that it was reasonable for her to be expected to adhere to specific attendance requirements and follow reasonable directions from her supervisors.  The evidence given suggested that while the applicant occasionally met performance expectations, there were significant periods where her performance did not improve. 

After a series of incidents including frequent lateness arriving to work, not following directions, and poor communication with supervisors, the applicant was notified that a Performance Improvement Process (PIP) would be implemented. The PIP identified specific improvement goals for the applicant and established a process period during which the applicant was expected to make progress on the plan and provide an opportunity to demonstrate improvement and commitment to the role.  The PIP also made provision for regular review and progress update meetings with the applicant’s supervisors.  During this period, evidence detailed that the applicant had not made sufficient progress, and the final PIP review recommended termination of the applicant’s employment.

Senior Commissioner Cosentino concluded that the applicant did not establish that her termination was harsh, oppressive, or unfair, and the respondent had valid reasons related to her performance for the dismissal.  The Senior Commissioner noted the respondent had engaged in extensive processes to address the applicant’s performance issues before the termination.  Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

 

The decision can be read here.