By The Editor
An architect has been awarded $50,000 in compensation after he was accused of leaking sensitive information to an ex-colleague who was sacked, and was subsequently dismissed himself.
The man, who had worked for his employer for seven years, met and exchanged personal emails with the firm’s former finance manager, who was dismissed in January 2011 for failing to notify the employer about a number of accounting errors.
Following some redundancies in March, the architect provided a list of the names of redundant employees to the former finance manager, as the latter wanted to contact them to explain he was not responsible for the loss of their jobs. The architect and former finance manager also met for lunch just after this time, where the architect refused a request to act as a referee or provide a reference for him.
In May, the company’s managing director told the architect that he’d been seen having lunch with the former finance manager, which the architect confirmed. He was also questioned about anonymous emails to the company’s directors and denied any involvement.
A few days later, the architect was called into a meeting with the managing director and HR manager, presented with print-outs of his email conversations with the former finance manager, and suspended pending an investigation for providing “confidential business related information” and assisting the former finance manager with an unfair dismissal claim. He was dismissed in June.
At a Fair Work Australia (FWA) hearing, the architect said he had shown compassion for his former colleague and friend by meeting him and maintaining email contact. He maintained that the names of redundant employees could not be classified as confidential as it was widely known who was leaving the company, and said he was only made aware of the former finance manager’s unfair dismissal claim in late March.
Responding to accusations of disloyalty to the company, the architect said he proved his loyalty by continuing to deliver projects and working constructively with other team members.
Handing down his finding, FWA Senior Deputy President (SDP) Jonathan Hamberger said while gross disloyalty could constitute grounds for dismissal, the architect’s conduct could not be considered disloyal, and he was entitled to keep his contact with the former finance manager to himself, “as long as his dealings….were proper”.
SDP Hamberger also found there was no basis on which the list of names of employees who had already been told they were being made redundant could be considered confidential.
“If (the architect) had indeed covertly provided (the former finance manager) with confidential company information to assist the latter take legal action against the employer, this may have constituted an act of disloyalty sufficient to form a valid reason for his dismissal,” SDP Hamberger said. “However I find that this is not what occurred.”
SDP Hamberger criticised the employer for having no evidence to suggest the architect was involved in the anonymous emails or dishonest about the nature of his contact with his former colleague.
The lack of information and evidence presented by the employer counted heavily against it in this case, costing it a $50,000 payout.
Termination can be a complex and evolving matter, and VECCI’s Workplace Relations Consultants recommend seeking advice when undertaking these considerations. For more info, visit the VECCI website or call 03 8662 5333.
I would have to agree with SDP Hamberger. The employer was unfair in his treatment of the architect. It also looks like invasion of privacy by the employer. If the employer was not comfortable with the architect’s associations, it should have expressed the concern to the employee. To me it looks like the employer simply wanted to get rid of this employee: done it the wrong way and paid the price.