Andrew Goddard, a former salesperson for Richtek Melbourne Pty Ltd, was dismissed on December 22, 2023, allegedly for not adhering to the company’s quoting policy and procedure and for being rude to a customer. Goddard contends that these allegations were not communicated to him beforehand, and he asserts that his dismissal was unfair in terms of process and proportionality. He claims it was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable.
Mr Goddard was represented by Garry Dircks of Just Relations at hearing.
The core issues of Goddard’s dismissal centered around three warnings he received on the day of his dismissal, all dated December 22, 2023, shortly before his termination. These warnings cited specific incidents of alleged misconduct:
- First Written Warning: Goddard was accused of not following procedures by not attending a customer’s site in person and instead trying to quote over the phone.
- Second Written Warning: Goddard allegedly spoke rudely to a customer, prompting a complaint.
- Third Written Warning: He was accused of not following Richtek’s quoting pricing policy, specifically making one-off items instead of prebuilds.
However, Deputy President Colman found that the allegations against Goddard were not substantiated. For instance, Richtek failed to produce a copy of the policy Goddard was said to have contravened. Additionally, evidence regarding his alleged rudeness to the customer Trish indicated some ambiguity in the interaction, but Goddard admitted to being potentially sarcastic and stated that he might have been perceived as rude.
The decision to dismiss Goddard was deemed harsh and unfair due to the process followed by Richtek. The company sent Goddard a flurry of letters just before his dismissal, failing to provide him with a genuine opportunity to respond or defend himself. This last-minute attempt to warn him was considered grossly inadequate, indicating a lack of genuine effort to resolve concerns before terminating his employment.
Remedy: The only available remedies in such cases are reinstatement or compensation. Since reinstatement was not sought, the focus was on compensation. The Commission examined various factors such as Goddard’s efforts to mitigate loss and his employment contract, which included a non-compete clause. This clause likely discouraged Goddard from seeking jobs in the same sector, impacting his ability to mitigate his loss effectively.
Given the circumstances, the Commission calculated Goddard’s expected earnings if he had not been dismissed, considering his base salary and commissions. Ultimately, the Commission found it reasonable to award compensation to Goddard for his unfair dismissal, while acknowledging the significant toll the dismissal had on his financial and personal life. The Commission calculated compensation of $39,205.34 to be appropriate.
The decision highlights the importance of fair and transparent processes in employment termination and emphasizes the potential challenges faced by employees dealing with non-compete clauses.