iscover Accounts officer chose ‘rage’ over lawful direction, Fair Work finds
BusinessAn accounts officer failed to dispute a bus manufacturer’s decision to terminate her over an “irreconcilable breakdown” of the working relationship.
The former accounts payable officer of bus manufacturer Volgren Australia failed to dispute her termination over the “irreconcilable breakdown” of the working relationship between herself, her team, and the company’s management and senior leadership.
The relationship breakdown occurred shortly after the officer requested a performance and pay review in August 2024, about seven months after she received a five per cent increase.
Despite being told the next salary review would have to wait until early 2025, she escalated her concerns to the CEO and CFO.
After the second time she involved them, the officer was verbally warned in a meeting to refrain because it was a “misallocation of the CEO’s time” to deal with a pay dispute with an employee at her level.
Sometime between late 2024 and early 2025, Volgren’s staff were asked to participate in a new, online performance management process.
The officer refused on the grounds she had already participated in performance reviews and felt she should not have to repeat herself.
In multiple emails, the national HR manager unsuccessfully attempted to set up a meeting with the officer to discuss the new process. It included a commitment from the manger that the discussions would be in writing to avoid misunderstandings.
Commissioner Sophie Panopoulos said the direction to participate in the performance process was “clearly lawful and reasonable”.
“It is not disputed that the applicant was given multiple opportunities to carry out this lawful and reasonable direction and to have a discussion about it but refused to do so,” Panopoulos said.
The commission also found involvement of the CEO in performance review concerns was in “direct defiance to a lawful direction”.
“I am of the view that the email exchange between the applicant and the respondent, and the applicant’s own evidence at the hearing, illustrates that she was still focused on her 2024 unsuccessful attempts for a pay rise and refused to accept the respondent’s prerogative to initiate an online performance review process for its staff that included her,” Panopoulos said.
“The applicant appears determined to ‘maintain the rage’.”
