Myassignment.live is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university
I found this case of unfair dismissal of a mine worker for his Facebook post related to his employment, which was in news in June 2018. A coal mine worker was unfairly dismissed for he was found to have made several Facebook posts in relation to his employment of Coal mine operation, something that it did after work hours and on a personal device. It was released by the employer that Mr Waters’ actions had the capacity to affect operations of the coal mine, thereby impacting his business negatively which is unacceptable. Mr Waters had published some Facebook posts regarding the mine’s operation on Christmas and Boxing Day. He confirmed over the Facebook posts that the operations of the mine would be closed on Christmas and boxing days. However it was just a speculation which was Andrew from the employers and as there are no such promises made by the employer, Mt Arthur. In this regard the employer Mt Arthur dismissed Mr Waters on the grounds that his announcement of false information was harmful for his business as it disrupted Mt Arthur’s business operations.
What I could understand from the perspective of Mr Waters, the Facebook post was an outcome of the safety concerns and queries held by various workers in regard to the operations of the mine on Christmas and Boxing Day. Before the Facebook post was out, there were many oscillating decisions that were announced by Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd (Mt Arthur) in relation to the operations of the shifts on Christmas and boxing day, which was however unclear to the workers. Such a clear and confusing situation instigated Mr Waters to publish the particular Facebook post speculating about the shut off situation of the mine on Christmas and Boxing Day, which are supposed to be national holidays.
In this regard, Mr Waters argued on the particular point, among other points, that his actions of publishing the Facebook post was done outside his working hours and working place, and therefore his dismissal on this ground was unfair. It is also commented that his actions were necessary in order to simplify the confusion that was lurking among the coal mine workers regarding the holiday that the deserved on Christmas and Boxing Day. In addition it is also held by Mr Waters that there were no evidences as to the effect or impact of the Facebook post disrupting the usual operation of the coal mine.
Thus I consider his arguments in favour of the concerns of the workers along with the ineffectiveness of his Facebook post just and reasonable from his end.
Mt Arthur was of the view that his reasons to dismiss Mr Waters for his conduct of publishing false information on Facebook was a breach of code of conduct, thereby making his decision to dismiss him valid and reasonable. Mt Arthur argued that the conduct of Mr Waters was clear case of breach of code of conduct for the employment for he not only disseminated false information about the operation of the coal mine but also disrupted the usual operation by disseminating such false information. It was pointed out by Mt Arthur that such action of Mr waters have led to the breach of several workplace ethics, code of conduct and charter of values even though all his employees, including Mr Waters, was aware and trained in these policies.
Mt Arthur further argued that the action of Mr Waters was the reason behind the disruptive operations of the coal mine on Christmas and boxing day, even though she could not produce a strong evidence of it before the Fair Work Commission. However it was pointed out that the slow working progress and production in the coal mine during those two days is an evidence for the effectiveness of the Facebook post that led to the absence of several workers, thereby resulting to a deficit in the production.
The Fair Work Commission declared that the reasons for which the employer Mt Arthur had dismissed Mr Waters were valid and reasonable. It was held that the dismissal was not harsh, unreasonable or unjust as it did not overrule the provisions led down under Section 387 of the Fair Work Act. The commission for the health that the Facebook post published by Mr Waters was directly e related to his employment, yet disseminating false information which was even was than usual disclosure of fact (Howe 2013).
The commission confirmed its decision by stating that the relevance of the Facebook post was direct with Mr Waters's employment providing false information to the co-workers. Dissemination of false information is a breach of a workplace policy, however irrespective of the fact that whether it was effective enough to disrupt the usual operations of the mine.
Referring to an earlier decision in the case of B, C and D v Australian Postal Corporation T/A Australia post [2013] FWCFB 6191, it was held by the Fair Work Commission that the reason for which an employer this misses his employee must be a 'valid reason' which would be majorly decided upon the conduct of breach of a workplace policy by the employee (Thornthwaite 2013).
In this regard the Fair Work Commission summarised the variables which need to be considered for determining whether the conduct of an employee, something that is committed outside the working hours, has a relevant connection with his employment.
Therefore I would conclude that the conduct of an employee is evaluated from a number of point’s views in order to be marked as a breach of code of conduct, thereby making it a ground of dismissal of such employee. In this case the commission supported the decision of the employer and rejected the plea of unfair dismissal of the employee.
B, C and D v Australian Postal Corporation T/A Australia post [2013] FWCFB 6191
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Freyens, B.P. and Oslington, P, 2013. ‘A first look at incidence and outcomes of unfair dismissal claims under fair work, work choices and the workplace relations act’. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, vol 16, no. 2, pp. 295.
Howe, J, 2013. ‘Poles Apart? The Contestation between the Ideas of No Fault Dismissal and Unfair Dismissal for Protecting Job Security’. Industrial Law Journal, vol 42, no. 2, pp.122-151.
Marc Waters v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited T/A Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited [2018] FWC 3285
Thornthwaite, L, 2013. ‘Social media, unfair dismissal and the regulation of employees’ conduct outside work’. Australian Journal of Labour Law, vol 26, no. 2, pp.164-184.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2022). Accounting Principles II. Retrieved from https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html.
"Accounting Principles II." My Assignment Help, 2022, https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html.
My Assignment Help (2022) Accounting Principles II [Online]. Available from: https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html
[Accessed 06 September 2022].
My Assignment Help. 'Accounting Principles II' (My Assignment Help, 2022) < https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html> accessed 06 September 2022.
My Assignment Help. Accounting Principles II [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2022 [cited 06 September 2022]. Available from: https://myassignment.live/free-samples/acct2023-accounting-principles-ii/financial-statements-of-the-business-file-A1D39FE.html.
Are you confident that you will achieve the grade?
Our best Expert will help you improve your grade
If you are the original writer of this content and no longer wish to have your work published on Myassignment.live then please raise the content removal request.