Karen Baker v Roy Morgan Research Ltd - [2013] FWC 6694

[2013] FWC 6694 Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2013/5276) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 20 November 2013 for result of appeal.

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Karen Baker
v
Roy Morgan Research Ltd
(U2013/539)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for remedy from unfair dismissal - dismissal was harsh and unreasonable - compensation awarded.

[1] Ms Karen Baker was employed by Roy Morgan Research Ltd (Roy Morgan). Roy Morgan told Ms Baker that her job was redundant and as she was not able to be redeployed terminated her employment on 6 February 2013. Ms Baker said her dismissal was unfair as her position was not redundant.

[2] The issues in dispute in this matter are as follows:

a) Was Ms Baker’s job no longer required because of changes in Roy Morgan’s operational requirements?

b) If it was, did Roy Morgan comply with its obligations under the Roy Morgan Research Enterprise Agreement 2009 - 2013 (the Agreement) to consult with Ms Baker?

c) Was it reasonable to redeploy Ms Baker?

d) If the answer to any one of the questions above was no, was the termination of Ms Baker’s employment harsh, unjust or unreasonable?

e) What is the appropriate remedy?

Was Ms Baker’s job no longer required because of changes in Roy Morgan’s operational requirements?

[3] Mr Sam Schwartz, the Director - HR and Transformation, commenced employment with Roy Morgan on 3 January 2013. He immediately identified two gaps within the HR team, namely recruitment and learning and development. He decided he needed a more senior and strategic role, a Learning and Development Lead. He decided that there was no need for a full-time Asteroid Trainer. 1 On 7 January 2013, he advised Ms Michele Levine, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), that this new role would replace the role currently occupied by Ms Baker.2

[4] Ms Baker had initially been employed as the Asteroid Trainer and Mr Schwartz advised her on 8 January 2013 that the ongoing role of Asteroid Trainer was no longer required and would be made redundant.

[5] At the time Mr Schwartz made that decision Ms Baker had not been doing the job of Asteroid Trainer since August 2012. Mr Schwartz knew that Ms Baker “was the designated trainer for Asteroid and that she was currently also fulfilling duties in the HR team in an administrative capacity but that she hadn’t undertaken any Asteroid training for some months.” 3

[6] It was not clear what Ms Baker’s actual position was at the time of this decision. Ms Levine gave evidence that she had agreed that Ms Baker be transferred to a broader training role within the HR team. 4

[7] Ms Baker understood that she had been seconded to the HR team to supervise the more junior staff when an earlier HR Director had resigned. She said that, when Ms Athina Katiforis took over the supervision of the HR team in November 2012,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Karen Baker v Roy Morgan Research Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FWC 6694
Decision Date: 6 SEPTEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Karen Baker, the applicant, and Roy Morgan Research Ltd, the respondent. The dispute arose from Baker's dismissal from her position as a senior account manager at Roy Morgan. Baker sought a remedy for unfair dismissal, contending that her termination was unjust and unreasonable. The court responsible for adjudicating this matter was the Fair Work Commission. The Commission was tasked with determining whether Baker's dismissal was fair and whether she was entitled to compensation.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Baker's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. To determine this, the Commission considered various factors, including the nature of the dismissal, the circumstances leading to it, and the fairness of the process followed by the employer. Another critical aspect was whether Roy Morgan had followed its own policies and procedures in dismissing Baker and whether the employer had acted reasonably in doing so. The Commission also examined whether the employer had provided adequate reasons for the dismissal and whether Baker had an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her.

In its decision, the Commission found that Baker's dismissal was harsh and unreasonable. The employer failed to provide clear reasons for the dismissal and did not allow Baker an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Commission also noted that the process leading to the dismissal was flawed, as Roy Morgan did not follow its own policies and procedures. Consequently, the Commission awarded Baker compensation for the unfair dismissal. The Commission held that the employer's failure to follow proper procedures and provide adequate reasons for the dismissal constituted a breach of the applicable laws governing unfair dismissal. The Commission further found that the compensation should reflect the loss of earnings and the distress caused by the unfair dismissal.

Orders