Lance Camilleri v IBM Australia Limited - [2014] FWC 5894

[2014] FWC 5894

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lance Camilleri
v
IBM Australia Limited
(U2014/5954)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’CALLAGHAN

ADELAIDE, 10 SEPTEMBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - failure to comply with company requirements - valid reason - fair process - harsh, unjust or unreasonable - reinstatement.

[1] On 25 March 2014 Mr Camilleri lodged an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) relative to the termination of his employment with IBM Australia Limited (IBM). That application was unable to be settled through the conciliation process and was consequently referred to me for arbitration.

[2] It was the subject of a hearing on 14, 15 and 22 August 2014. At this hearing Mr Camilleri was represented by Mr S Bourne, of counsel and IBM by Mr Colgrave of counsel. Grants of permission were made pursuant to s.596(2)(a) in each instance.

[3] No initial or jurisdictional issues are associated with the application.

[4] Mr Camilleri worked for IBM for some 17 years. Prior to the termination of his employment Mr Camilleri had an unblemished employment history. At the time of the termination of his employment he was a Technical Project Manager/Managing Consultant. From March 2011 to September 2012 Mr Camilleri was engaged on an IBM project in Melbourne which generally required him to travel from his home in Adelaide and be accommodated in Melbourne. The termination of his employment followed an investigation undertaken by the IBM Internal Audit function which commenced in May 2013. Mr Camilleri met with IBM Internal Audit and human resources personnel on 8 November 2013. In the days following that meeting Mr Camilleri provided various emails relative to the matters raised with him. The IBM Internal Audit function report was provided to the IBM Disciplinary Action Review Committee (DARC). That investigation concluded that during the period from October 2011 to 26 September 2012 Mr Camilleri made various expense related claims in breach of IBM policies, practices and code of conduct. The DARC endorsed termination of Mr Camilleri’s employment as the appropriate sanction.

[5] On 23 December 2013 the IBM Managing Director agreed with the proposal for the termination of Mr Camilleri’s employment.

[6] On 21 January 2014 IBM provided Mr Camilleri with formal advice of the Internal Audit investigation which foreshadowed termination of his employment and effectively required him to show cause as to why this dismissal should not be effected. This advice advised Mr Camilleri of his immediate suspension, with pay, and requested him to respond by 23 January 2014.

[7] IBM emailed Mr Camilleri on 22 January 2014, asking about his response. On 23 January 2014 Mr Camilleri provided an email response in which he advised of his previously approved annual leave commencing on 24 January 2014 and a planned overseas trip. He requested an extension of time to respond until 21 February 2014. IBM approved this request.

[8] The allegations made against Mr Camilleri are particularly significant in this matter. These…

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 Lance Camilleri v IBM Australia Limited 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: [2014] FWC 5894
Decision Date: 10 SEPTEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lance Camilleri against IBM Australia Limited involved an application for relief from an unfair dismissal. The applicant, Mr Camilleri, alleged that his dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement. IBM Australia Limited argued that the dismissal was justified due to Mr Camilleri's failure to comply with company policies and procedures. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over unfair dismissal claims in Australia.

The primary legal issues centred on whether IBM had a valid reason for dismissing Mr Camilleri, whether the process followed was fair, and if the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court needed to examine the specific circumstances surrounding Mr Camilleri's employment and the reasons provided by IBM for his termination. Additionally, the court had to assess if the dismissal met the criteria for being unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the specific circumstances of Mr Camilleri's employment and dismissal. The Commission found that IBM had a valid reason for terminating Mr Camilleri due to his failure to comply with company requirements. However, the Commission also determined that the process followed by IBM was not entirely fair, as it did not provide Mr Camilleri with adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable, and ordered Mr Camilleri's reinstatement along with compensation for lost earnings.

Orders