Here is an extract from a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission which is a very useful analysis of the principles used by the Commission when calculating compensation for unfair dismissal.
“Compensation
[96] Section 392 of the Act provides:
“392 Remedy—compensation
Compensation
[2023] FWC 444
23
(1) An order for the payment of compensation to a person must be an order that the
person’s employer at the time of the dismissal pay compensation to the person in lieu of
reinstatement.
Criteria for deciding amounts
(2) In determining an amount for the purposes of an order under subsection (1), the
FWC must take into account all the circumstances of the case including:
(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s enterprise; and
(b) the length of the person’s service with the employer; and
(c) the remuneration that the person would have received, or would have
been likely to receive, if the person had not been dismissed; and
(d) the efforts of the person (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the
person because of the dismissal; and
(e) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment
or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the
order for compensation; and
(f) the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by the person
during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the
actual compensation; and
(g) any other matter that the FWC considers relevant.
Misconduct reduces amount
(3) If the FWC is satisfied that misconduct of a person contributed to the employer’s
decision to dismiss the person, the FWC must reduce the amount it would otherwise
order under subsection (1) by an appropriate amount on account of the misconduct.
Shock, distress etc. disregarded
(4) The amount ordered by the FWC to be paid to a person under subsection (1)
must not include a component by way of compensation for shock, distress or
humiliation, or other analogous hurt, caused to the person by the manner of the person’s
dismissal.
Compensation cap
(5) The amount ordered by the FWC to be paid to a person under subsection (1)
must not exceed the lesser of:
(a) the amount worked out under subsection (6); and
[2023] FWC 444
24
(b) half the amount of the high income threshold immediately before the
dismissal.
(6) The amount is the total of the following amounts:
(a) the total amount of remuneration:
(i) received by the person; or
(ii) to which the person was entitled;
(whichever is higher) for any period of employment with the employer during
the 26 weeks immediately before the dismissal; and
(b) if the employee was on leave without pay or without full pay while so
employed during any part of that period—the amount of remuneration taken to
have been received by the employee for the period of leave in accordance with
the regulations.”
Authorities
[97] The approach to the calculation of compensation is set out in a decision of a Full Bench
of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Sprigg v Paul’s Licensed Festival
Supermarket.
14 That approach, with some refinement, has subsequently been endorsed and
adopted by Full Benches of the Commission in Bowden v Ottrey Homes Cobram and District
Retirement Villages inc T/A Ottrey;
15 Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd v Neeteson-Lemkes16 and
McCulloch v Calvary Health Care (McCulloch).
17
[98] I have had regard to the above authorities.
The effect of the order on the viability of the Respondent
[99] The Respondent did not submit that an order of compensation would affect the viability
of the Respondent.
The length of Ms Duncan’s service
[100] Ms Duncan was employed for a period of approximately 11.5 years. This is a very long
period of time.
The remuneration that Ms Duncan would have received, or would have been likely to receive,
if she had not been dismissed
[101] I consider that Ms Duncan would have likely to have remained employed for at least a
period of one year. She was a skilled and loyal employee. She had not been addressed in
respect of her costings being out and when asked about her previous months’ costings, it is clear
that this did form the substantial reason for the dismissal; Kathy’s situation did.
[2023] FWC 444
25
[102] It was entirely unfair for Mr Pfeiffer to place blame on Ms Duncan on account of
Kathy’s hospitalisation, and a rational employer would have been grateful that an employee as
skilled and experienced as Ms Duncan could maintain business continuity in the face of the
temporary loss of Kathy.
[103] I consider that one year is the likely period of time on account of the fact that Ms Duncan
had become entitled to long service leave and it is a valuable entitlement in addition to four
weeks of annual leave per annum. Ms Duncan had no intention of leaving the employment,
and one year is an appropriate period to reassess life’s experiences, goals and location for work.
[104] I consider that Ms Duncan would have received remuneration of $87,750 per annum for
one year’s employment.
The efforts of Ms Duncan (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered because of the dismissal
[105] I am satisfied that Ms Duncan made every effort to mitigate her loss by applying for
appropriate roles suitable to the geographical area and the skills and experience she possesses.
I note that she secured suitable alternative employment approximately six weeks later at the
rate of $65,000 per annum.
The amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during
the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation and the amount
of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by Ms Duncan during the period between the
making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation
[106] Ms Duncan was paid four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice on dismissal. This is recorded
on the separation certificate as an amount of $6,840.
[107] In the period 5 December 2022 to 24 October 2023 (that being one year from the date
of the dismissal), Ms Duncan is likely to earn in her new employment the amount of $65,000
per annum. The period is six weeks short of one year, therefore the amount is 46 weeks. The
total remuneration likely to be earned in the new employment is $57,500.
Other relevant matters
[108] I have already taken into account Ms Duncan’s lengthy period of service in determining
how likely she would have remained in the employment had she not been dismissed. I have
also taken into account the relative small size of the business in determining how much
compensation should be awarded.
[109] I do not consider there are other relevant matters affecting the amount of compensation
to be awarded.
Misconduct reduces amount
[110] Section 392(3) of the Act requires that if the Commission is satisfied that the misconduct
of a person contributed to the employer’s decision to dismiss the person then the Commission
[2023] FWC 444
26
must reduce the amount it would otherwise order by an appropriate amount on account of the
misconduct.
[111] The section requires that consideration be given by the Commission, amongst other
things, as to whether a person’s misconduct contributed to the decision to dismiss an employee
even if the Commission has found that there was no valid reason for the person’s dismissal.
However, if there was no valid reason for the dismissal that may be relevant to the
Commission’s decision as to the appropriate amount by which the amount of compensation
should be reduced.18
[112] I am not satisfied that Ms Duncan engaged in any misconduct. Accordingly, I cannot be
satisfied a reduction should be made.
Shock, distress etc. disregarded
[113] I confirm that any amount ordered does not include a component by way of
compensation for shock, distress or humiliation, or other analogous hurt caused to Ms Duncan
by the manner of the dismissal.
Compensation Cap
[114] I must reduce the amount of compensation to be ordered if it exceeds the lesser of the
total amount of remuneration received by the applicant, or to which the applicant was entitled,
for any period of employment with the employer during the 26 weeks immediately before the
dismissal, or the high income threshold immediately prior to the dismissal.
[115] The high income threshold immediately prior to the dismissal was $162,000, and the
amount for 26 weeks was $81,000. The amount of compensation the Commission will order
does not exceed the compensation cap nor the amount that Ms Duncan was entitled to during
the 26 weeks immediately before the dismissal.
Payment by instalments
[116] I am mindful that the sum to be ordered may not be readily available to the Respondent
within 14 days, which is my usual period of time to allow for payment when ordering
compensation. Accordingly, I will order the compensation to be made in four payments as
specified in the order.
Order of compensation
[117] I have determined that Ms Duncan would have been likely to receive $87,750 in
remuneration if she had not been dismissed. From this amount there will be a deduction of
$6,840 on account of four weeks’ payment made to her, and a further $57,500 deduction on
account of remuneration earned and to be earned by her in the period I consider she would have
remained employed by the Respondent.
[118] The amount to be paid to Ms Duncan is $23,410 gross, less tax as required by law.
[2023] FWC 444
27
[119] In addition, the Respondent is to pay superannuation at the rate of 10.5% being an
amount of $2,458.05 into Ms Duncan’s superannuation fund.
[120] The above amounts are to be paid as follows:
(a) $7,800 gross, less taxation by 11 April 2023;
(b) $7,800 gross, less taxation by 26 April 2023;
(c) $7,810 gross, less taxation by 9 May 2023; and
(d) $2,458.05 superannuation into Ms Duncan’s superannuation account by 23 May
2023.
[121] An Order of compensation [PR760648] will be issued concurrently with this decision.”
Duncan v PKK Transport Pty Ltd ATF the PKK Family Trust T/A Ashtons Removals [2023] FWC 444 delivered 28 March 2023