2
[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette,
dated 18 February, 2005, Vol. 178, No.7, pages 158-159]
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 74 – application for reinstatement
Hamish Withington AND McCafferty’s Greyhound Pty Ltd (No. B1608 of 2004)
COMMISSIONER BECHLY 2 February 2005
DECISION
Mr Hamish Withington was retrenched by McCafferty’s Greyhound Pty Ltd from the position of Operations Supervisor in Brisbane on 4 October 2004. He seeks reinstatement to that position. He was employed in various categories by the respondent for a little over four years.
Mr Withington states in his application that he has “reasonable grounds to believe that the redundancy as forced upon me by the company was not used correctly and was merely used as a tool of last resort, to dismiss me from the company. Additionally, I have reason to believe that the duties I once performed are now being carried out by another employee/s. Essentially, I understand this to be extremely unfair, as possible grounds for my termination / redundancy are somewhat questionable to say the least.”.
In responding to this claim the company advises, in essence that:
· since the merger of McCafferty’s and Greyhound, revenue has dropped by $40 million;
· over the past twelve months more than one hundred permanent positions have been made redundant;
· the coach building arm of the business has been closed;
· unprofitable services have been cut;
· administrative positions in Head Office have been halved; and
· other actions have been taken to reduce service costs by way of changing practices and introduction of modern technology.
Of significant interest to this matter is that since February 2004 each of six positions for Operations Supervisor have been made redundant. One such position remains in Darwin but apparently only until a WorkCover matter is finalised. Three of the incumbents in these roles have been promoted to other roles and three have been made redundant. Mr Withington states that he was not aware that these positions had been made redundant.
On the material presented it is apparent that the decision to make redundant the position of Operations Supervisor in Brisbane which Mr Withington occupied was made only a few days before he was informed of the redundancy. A meeting was called with Mr Withington to which he was invited to bring a witness. At that meeting he was informed of the decision to make his position redundant. Termination and redundancy payments were made to him within three days of the termination. No alterative positions were offered to Mr Withington at that meeting. At the time of dismissal a position of Driver Supervisor was available in Toowoomba and some casual driving positions were available.
Mr Withington commenced working for the company in July 2000 as a Driver and in December 2001 was appointed as Operations Assistant in Toowoomba, an administrative role building rosters for drivers and cleaners and associated duties. These roles expanded over time and with change to the business operations and declining financial situation.
In July 2003 Mr Withington was asked to move to Brisbane for a six month period. He states that at that time his role was that of Operations Supervisor. Later Mr Withington unsuccessfully applied for the position of Brisbane Operations Manager and subsequently continued employment as Operations Supervisor reporting to the newly appointed Brisbane Operations Manager. It was subsequent to this that the roles of Operations Supervisors, effectively throughout Australia, were made redundant.
It is the respondent’s evidence that Mr Withington was considered for the lower position of Driver Supervisor in Toowoomba but a decision was made that he was not suitable for the position. Two reasons were advanced viz
· lack of experience as a driver; and
· unsatisfactory personal relationships with drivers and other staff.
Mr Withington had limited driving experience with the respondent. The majority of his working life had been spent in Operations. I accept that the role of Driver Supervisor requires a seasoned driver’s skills and knowledge.
I further accept that a Driver Supervisor must have the capacity to manage drivers with a positive approach with a view to forging a high level of human relationships while maintaining a satisfactory level of discipline. It is the company’s evidence that Mr Withington, at this early stage in his career neither has the seasoning necessary for the position nor the skills to effectively manage a large team of drivers. On a consideration of all the material put I agree with this assessment.
I do not intend to delve into all of the evidence about personal and inter staff relationships which originated from Mr Withington’s evidence and consequently brought a response from the respondent’s witnesses. Such a course would only detract from his future career prospects. Mr Withington is a capable person who represented himself well in the proceedings. A more balanced understanding of human relationships and the effect that his actions might have on other persons, particularly those over which he holds a direct or indirect supervisory power, will better serve him if adopted by him in his future career.
On the material before me the action of the respondent in terminating Mr Withington on the basis of his position becoming redundant was not unfair.
The application is dismissed.
R.E. BECHLY, Commissioner.Hearing Details:
2005 31 January
Released: 3 February 2005 / Appearances:
Mr H. Withington conducting his own case.
Ms M. Leipa of McCafferty’s Greyhound Pty on behalf of the respondent.
Government Printer, Queensland
ÓThe State of Queensland 2005.