| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicants employed to recruit prospective employees for clients – Applicants’ role to undertake all vetting, induction, and processing of employees – Respondent argued crucial prospective employees fully assessed – Auditor identified reference checks not completed – Applicants argued breaches condoned as respondent’s manager (“D”) did not discuss auditor’s findings – D’s own audit identified procedures applicants failing to undertake – D raised concerns with applicants and emphasised compliance requirements in company policy – Client advised D placed employees did not hold requisite qualifications for assigned positions – Respondent shocked by lack of compliance when further audit undertaken of people placed by applicants – Applicants told breaches occurred and further investigation required – Applicants invited to meeting and told confirmation of serious misconduct might give rise to summary dismissal – Respondent provided applicant with 27 examples of non-compliance – Applicants responded to only 6 allegations and provided no explanation for remaining 21 allegations – Parties met again where respondent produced three further examples of non-compliance – Respondent considered comments made by applicants but found overall serious and extensive acts of non-compliance constituted serious misconduct – Applicants summarily dismissed – Authority found respondent made available manual, operating procedures, and guidelines, to enable consultants to undertake work – Authority rejected applicants’ evidence D failed to discuss auditor’s findings or company procedures – Authority rejected applicants’ argument positions advertised prior to dismissal – Found ensuring compliance very important matter for respondent – Authority satisfied applicants given all information and adequate opportunity to respond – Dismissals justified – Consultants |