There has been an increasing level of individual workplace disputes in recent years. In its last annual report, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) noted an almost one third increase in the number of applications over the previous year. A significant reason in our view is the failure of employers to deal with disputes and potential disputes before they escalate, in large part due to:
- A decrease in the number of experienced human resources/industrial relations/employment relations officers and managers with real world experience in dealing with workplace disputes. A senior FWC member has recently noted the de skilling and declining competency of industrial relations practitioners and commented that there is a missing generation of people with training in industrial relations;
- A corporate led efficiency drive expecting line managers to deal with all workplace disputes, but without specialist training and with a reduction in professional support.
This manifests in several ways:
- A lack of familiarity with and respect for industrial institutions such as the Fair Work Commission along with basic concepts and processes of workplace fairness;
- Poor internal investigations, disciplinary processes and rushed decision making with sometimes nonsensical allegations, little if any regard for the basic rules of procedural fairness and treating perception as the test of guilt rather than objectivity;
- The business integration of human resources to the extent of corporate Human Resources often becoming little more than “yes” persons for corporate commercial ends (as illustrated by recent events in the US) together with an accompanying lack of knowledge of employment law and the “fair go all round” concept.
The recent case of Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669 is a case in point. The basic facts were that the ABC terminated the employment of casual radio presenter Antoinette Lattouf. In doing so, they failed to give Ms Lattouf the opportunity to respond to misconduct allegations. Whilst this may not have been strictly required, it ignored the possibility of a discrimination related claim. The Federal Court found the ABC executives involved were motivated by Ms Lattouf’s political opinions about the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. In terminating Ms Lattouf’s employment, the ABC breached its Enterprise Agreement and the Fair Work Act. The actions were held to be unlawful and the broadcaster has been ordered to pay Ms Lattouf at least $70,000 in compensation. The ABC’s managing director, in a masterly understatement, recently conceded the more than $1 million spent on litigation with Ms Lattouf was not a good use of taxpayers’ money. This situation was caused, at least partly, by the lack of robust internal advice.
Another example arises in a recent unfair dismissal jurisdictional decision – Lisa Miller v Designer Life (Queensland) Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1897. There, the FWC referred to the evidence of an employer’s people and culture manager as “disingenuous” and “self serving” where the employer deliberately did not provide a casual employee with formal notice of termination in order to prevent unfair dismissal proceedings. And in the case of Naskovski v Hisense Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 943, a human resources manager’s approach to a request for annual leave once an employee’s personal leave had been exhausted was described by the judge as “cold-hearted and antithetical to contemporary human resources practices”. The human resource manager’s evidence was found to be inconsistent, implausible and unreliable and the dismissal was said to demonstrate a “profound disregard for precision and documentation”. Strong stuff but in our experience not entirely uncommon. Nor is criticism reserved for internal human resources staff. The FWC recently awarded indemnity costs in an unfair dismissal case (an extremely rare occurrence) against an employer, noting that the employer’s human resources consultant “sought to embellish the reasons for dismissal, including by claiming that [the worker] was engaging in misconduct and harassing staff” – see James Francis Camenzuli v Companion Systems Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2166.
Other human resources employees are not always spared from this behaviour either. In Rewadee Piemyoosuk v Como Glasshouse No2 Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1550, a member of the Human Resources team received an after hours invitation to attend a meeting the following morning. There, she was given a prepared letter of termination and told her position was redundant and there were no redeployment options. The FWC described the lack of effort to consult about the redundancy or possible redeployment and suitability for other positions as “an egregious example of the unfair exercise of managerial prerogative”.
What does this mean for employees?
- It cannot be assumed that corporate human resources staff (or in some cases, consultants) are independent or that any grievance will be treated on its merits.
- It cannot be assumed that performance and disciplinary processes will be carried out fairly or thoroughly (although hopefully they will be). Whatever human resources tells you should be taken with several grains of salt and checked, keeping in mind that, ultimately, human resources is there to serve the interests of the company.
- Don’t assume that the human resources department knows best.
- Be very cautious about making complaints. The hard reality which is demonstrated by cases is that justice does not always result and making a complaint can be a career limiting move. And itigation is usually a case of trying to shut the gate once the horse has bolted.
- Have an exit strategy – sometimes the wisest course is to bide your time in order to find other suitable employment. An employer’s unwillingness to act fairly is often reflective of corporate culture in general and is unlikely to change.
- If you are making a complaint, be very specific about incidents, facts and what you are seeking, set (reasonable) time frames for response and follow up with Human Resources. It is common for complaints to be swept under the carpet unless they are pushed. Be realistic about your expected outcomes.
- Get timely advice from your union or a specialist employment lawyer. There is also voluntary legal advice available through community legal centres and the Fair Work Commission’s Workplace Advice Service.
These are, of course, general comments and there are very many able, experienced and respected employment relations professionals doing their best to assist employers to be model corporate citizens and bring about common sense solutions to often difficult workplace disputes. You just can’t count on dealing with any of them.
Please contact us if you would like any further information or help.