Summary dismissal is dismissal without notice. It does not require advance notice to the employee and wages are only paid to the time of dismissal. An employer has a legal right to summarily dismiss an employee without notice for serious misconduct or other conduct which justifies such dismissal.
Employers should always think very carefully and thoroughly consider the options before making a decision to immediately or “summarily” dismiss an employee. For summary dismissal to be lawful there must have been a breach by the employee of either an express or implied term of the contract of employment that is serious enough to necessitate an employer to undertake an action of summary dismissal.
I recommend before summary dismissal action is taken employers do the following:
Summary dismissal of a long standing employee with a good or unblemished record can be problematic.
Your options should be carefully considered
some cases that highlight differing views of summary dismissal:
In Bruce v AWB Ltd  FCA, the Federal Court of Australia stated that mere misconduct is not considered as sufficient grounds to warrant immediate dismissal. For a summary dismissal to be lawful the employee’s conduct must be judged serious enough that summary dismissal is the only option.
In Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell  HCA 64, Kirby J stated that it is “only in exceptional circumstances” that an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee summarily. His Honour went on to state that generally, acts of dishonesty of similar conduct that destroys the mutual trust between the employer and employee fall within the class of conduct which would allow a lawful summary dismissal.
In Smith v Aussie Waste Management Pty Ltd  FWC 1044 (Smith), the FWC ruled that swearing at a managing director during a heated phone call was not sufficient cause for summary dismissal. The FWC ruled that the conduct was not ‘sufficiently insubordinate’ for him to be dismissed because the conversation was not overheard by other employees, meaning it had not undermined the managing director’s authority in the workplace.
On the other hand:
In John Pinawin t/a RoseVi Hair Face.Body v Edwin Domingo  FWAFB 1359 the Full Bench accepted that the summary dismissal of a hairdresser whose work performance was adversely affected by his drug use was fair, but warned the same conclusion would not necessarily be reached in all cases of out-of-hours misconduct – an issue on which the Full Bench made some interesting observations that pertain to all employers.
In Lloyd & Co Pty Ltd v Shuttle ( FWCFB 144) the employee had sent a series of emails to other staff members that were highly critical and disparaging of the managing director.
The Commission ruled that the managing director’s feelings of betrayal as a result of the employee’s personal hostility and disloyalty were reasonably held. The managing director had direct evidence of disloyalty in the form of the emails
As you can see summary dismissal is not cut and dry, I recommend careful and expert investigation of misconduct incidents that could result in summary dismissal.
The peace of mind of getting it right outweighs the cost of an expert investigation.
This is general information only. It does not replace advice from a qualified workplace investigator in your state or territory. It is recommended that should you encounter complaints in the workplace that you seek advice from a suitably qualified and experienced workplace investigator. AWPTI can assist – www.awpti.com.au
Add a Comment