Which approach would you use to consider if an action meets the reasonable person standard
Reasonable management action – carried out in a reasonable mannerDiscussionsApplication by E.K. [2017] FWC 3907 (Simpson C, 21 August 2017). Show
Facts On a number of occasions the applicant’s supervisor had cause to address certain issues with the applicant. The applicant alleged that in each of these occurrences her supervisor commenced a discussion by raising their voice at the applicant. Outcome In dismissing the application the Commissioner considered that there was a pattern of the applicant making specific allegations about having been bullied when the evidence suggested that it was in fact her own behaviour that was inappropriate. Relevance PromotionDevasahayam and Comcare [2010] AATA 785 (14 October 2010). Facts Outcome Relevance Performance appraisalRe Mr Sun [2014] FWC 3839 (Cloghan C, 16 June 2014). Facts The applicant collapsed at work and was taken to hospital. At a meeting to discuss his return to work he alleged the collapse was work related and that an unnamed person changed the weightings on his performance appraisal (the First Complaint). The employer advised him that it would formally investigate the complaint in accordance with policy. The investigation found that his allegation was not substantiated. Upon his return to work the applicant had a meeting with his manager and Mr A to discuss his role and how he carried it out. Mr A informed the applicant that he could allocate employees to undertake tasks irrespective of whether they were within the employee’s skills or position description, and that he was authorised to make such decisions and monitor those tasks and his expectations. This resulted in a situation where the applicant was critical of Mr A for requiring him to do a task which he considered was beyond his skills and capabilities, and consequently he accused Mr A of bullying (the Second Complaint). Outcome Relevance Performance reviewAmie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited and Others [2015] FWC 774 (Hatcher VP, 13 February 2015). Facts All staff undergo yearly Performance Development Assessments (PDAs). In her 2013 half-yearly PDA Ms Mac’s supervisor raised a number of areas where she needed to improve, and made a number of suggestions concerning how she might improve, her work performance. Shortly after Ms Mac went through the full-year PDA process she was put on a performance improvement plan (PIP). By about mid-February management had formed the view that Ms Mac was not meeting the objectives of the PIP and had therefore ‘breached’ it. In March 2014, Ms Mac’s solicitors sent a letter to BOQ advising that Ms Mac was on sick leave due to ‘acute stress’ caused by the PIP process and its surrounding circumstances. Outcome The PIP process was the standard means by which this was done within BOQ. It was unsatisfactory that BOQ’s Performance Management Policy made no reference to the PIP process, with the result that the process was not fully transparent to all employees. Nonetheless, performance plans which clearly identify targets for improvement, require achievement of those targets within identified timeframes, and which provide support and feedback to employees to assist them to achieve such targets, are a legitimate and commonly used means to improve employee performance. In that context, the use of the PIP process by BOQ in relation to Ms Mac was reasonable. Relevance Perceived bullying and harassmentFerguson and Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2012] AATA 718 (17 October 2012). Facts Outcome Relevance Reasonable management action – NOT carried out in a reasonable mannerAdherence to established internal policiesYu and Comcare [2010] AATA 960 ((1 December 2010), [(2010) 121 ALD 583]. Facts Outcome The Tribunal held that the management action in question was not within the meaning of ‘reasonable administrative action’ and that it was not undertaken in a reasonable manner. The worker for example had been denied procedural fairness and no documentation was produced setting out the evidence concerning the worker’s alleged underperformance. The Tribunal noted that the employer’s inadequate record keeping may have adversely affected its case. Relevance Performance monitoring and mentoringKrygsman-Yeates v State of Victoria [2011] VMC 57 (4 November 2011). Facts Outcome
Relevance Excessive emailsApplication by Ms A [2018] FWC 4147 (Asbury DP, 13 July 2018). Facts The applicant complained of bullying conduct consisting largely of excessive emails sent continuously. The respondent argued his conduct was reasonable management action underpinned by the applicant’s failure to comply with her managerial responsibilities. The applicant sought an order to stop the respondent from a range of behaviours. Outcome The Commission issued an order dealing with the timing, subject matter and content of future emails by the respondent. The orders also required the respondent to attempt to contact the applicant by telephone before sending an email in relation to a particular issue. Relevance What is an example of a quid pro quo harassment?Examples of this type of harassment can include: A supervisor requesting sexual favors as a condition for hiring, promotion, advancement, or opportunities. A manager threatening to terminate, transfer, demote, or otherwise adversely affect an employee's work life if sexual favors are not given or continued.
What is the key concept behind acts of harassing behavior?Harassment occurs when you engage in unwanted behaviour which is related to a relevant protected characteristic and which has the purpose or effect of: violating a student's dignity or. creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the student.
What four factors could contribute to a hostile work environment?So, what behaviors are considered criteria for a hostile work environment?. Sexual / racial harassment. ... . Discrimination of any kind. ... . Consistent aggressiveness. ... . Ridiculing or victimization. ... . Lots of complaints and threats for punishment. ... . That feeling you get.. What are the four categories of workplace violence quizlet?The four categories of workplace violence are criminal intent, employer directed, worker-on-worker, and domestic violence.
|