In Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2012] FCA 815 (3 August 2012), the Federal Court rejected an employee's breach of contract claim, ruling that the employer was justified in summarily dismissing him due to a 'persistent unwillingness' to follow company instructions and procedures, which constituted a well-founded reason for dismissal.
In August 2011, Paul Hill was engaged as the facilities manager at Sunshine Lodge and Cottages (operated by Compass Ten Pty Ltd). The lodge is a residential centre for persons with intellectual disabilities, many of whom require frequent medical attention.
After two months of service, Mr Hill was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct, in failing to supervise the administration of medication, make medical appointments for residents and follow up police checks for new staff. It was later discovered that Mr Hill had lied about his first-aid qualifications, by attaching his son's first aid certificate to his job application.
After his employment was terminated, Mr Hill alleged that Compass Ten had breached his employment contract, while Compass Ten maintained that the employee was validly terminated for serious misconduct, pursuant to the contract.
The advertisement for the position of manager at Sunshine Lodge stated that a first aid certificate was a requirement for the job. Mr Hill attached his son's first aid certificate to his application, later claiming he did this by mistake. He also argued that he believed he was "entitled" to a first aid certificate because he had helped his son complete a first aid course. Justice Cowdroy described these claims as "inconceivable" and noted that in his application he had incorrectly written his name as "PAUL (Peter Simon Christopher) HILL, to more closely reflect the name on the first aid certificate (Simon Peter Christopher Hill). This was accepted as a deliberate attempt to deceive Compass Ten, as no legal documents belonging to Mr Hill include the name 'Peter' and nobody at Sunshine Lodge ever referred to him as Peter. Given the importance of holding a valid first aid certificate for the Manager position and the statutory requirements concerning first aid trained staff, the court considered that Compass Ten was justified in summarily terminating Mr Hill's employment.
Despite the fact that concerns regarding Mr Hill's first aid certificate did not arise until after he was terminated, Compass Ten was able to subsequently raise this misconduct in support of the decision to terminate Mr Hill (Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd [1931] HCA 21).
In relation to duties concerning the medical care of residents, administration of financial records and attending training seminars, the court found that Mr Hill had engaged in serious misconduct. Justice Cowdroy stated that, in isolation, the employee's failures "may not have reasonably formed a basis for his dismissal," however the totality of the employee's conduct was sufficient to constitute a well-founded reason. The application was, accordingly, dismissed.
In a subsequent judgment of the Federal Court in relation to costs, the Court awarded costs against the employee on the basis that he had pursued his breach of contract claim that he knew was "doomed to fail". In ordering Mr Hill to pay Compass Hill's costs under section 570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Court held that Mr Hill knew prior to the proceedings being commenced that he had committed an act which constituted a ground for summary dismissal and which would inevitability provide the Company with a complete defence to a claim for breach of contract as soon as it was discovered.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
