1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Guillermo (William) Diaz
v
Anzpac Services (Australia) Pty Limited
(U2016/2078)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER SYDNEY, 10 AUGUST 2016
Application for relief from unfair dismissal.
[1] Guillermo (William) Diaz (the applicant) applied on 4 May 2016 for an unfair
dismissal remedy in relation to the termination of his employment by Anzpac Services
(Australia) Pty Limited (the respondent) on 13 April 2016.
[2] The application was heard on 3 and 4 August 2016. At the hearing, Mr Diaz was
represented by Lucy Saunders (Legal Officer, Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union) and
the respondent by Charles Watson (General Manager, Workplace Relations and Legal
Services, Printing Industries Association of Australia).
[3] The applicant gave evidence on his own behalf, together with Luis Alvial (AMWU
Delegate). Evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Lynne McKenzie (Human
Resources Executive), Julie Murphy (Operator), Steven Arduin (Operations Manager), Maura
Wisely (Human Resources Coordinator), and Lisa Borsey (Production Coordinator).
[4] On 13 April 2016, the applicant received a letter from Mr Arduin that included the
following:
‘This letter confirms the termination of your employment issued to you today at the
meeting held with you in the presence of Steve Arduin, Operations Manager, Lynne
McKenzie, HR Executive and Luis Alvial as your support person.
During the meeting we discussed your repeated unacceptable behaviour involving
harassment and bullying of peers in the workplace.
Having taken into account the seriousness of your behaviour, your response on this
occasion, previous counsellings & warnings relating to your behaviour toward peers in
the workplace and considering the facts, we advise that we are terminating your
employment immediately.
The statutory notice period, as payment in lieu of notice, will be included in your
termination payment.’
[2016] FWC 5305 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2016/5140) was
lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 21 October
2016 [[2016] FWCFB 7204] for result of appeal.]
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2016FWCFB7204.htm
[2016] FWC 5305
2
The evidence
[5] The respondent is a printing company. It has been in operation for around 100 years
and has traded as Anzpac Services (Australia) Pty Ltd since 1988.
[6] Mr Diaz is 55 years old. He came to Australia from Chile in 1991. He commenced
working for the respondent the following year. At the time of his termination he was working
as a gluing offsider, which included feeding, packing and stacking duties, and sometimes
running the gluing machine when the operator was on leave.
[7] The incidents that proved the catalyst for the applicant’s dismissal took place on 30
and 31 March 2016. There is some conflict in the evidence of the applicant and Ms Murphy
about these incidents. I found Ms Murphy to be a straightforward and credible witness. By
contrast I found the applicant’s recall of events generally unreliable. I found much of the
applicant’s evidence unconvincing. His oral evidence, in particular, was often in direct
conflict with clear written evidence1. In some cases, his replies during cross-examination were
in conflict with his own written evidence.2 I also found evidence he gave about an injury to
his finger, and his allegations that management tried to stop him seeking medical attention,
not credible.3 I have generally therefore preferred the evidence of Ms Murphy (and more
generally the respondent’s witnesses) over that of the applicant. I am satisfied, based on my
assessment of the evidence, that the following events took place.
[8] On 30 March, Ms Murphy was operating the Alpina (a gluing machine designed to
glue cartons into folded shapes). Mr Diaz was working as Ms Murphy’s offsider, feeding the
machine. Ms Murphy started the machine at 30,000 units per hour and increased speed
gradually to about 62,000 units per hour4. Shortly after this, Mr Diaz started waving his arm
and yelling at her. Ms Murphy stopped the machine and went to talk to Mr Diaz. Because of
the noise and the distance involved, Mr Diaz had had to raise his voice to attract Ms Murphy’s
attention.5 However he did not lower his voice when she went to talk to him. Instead Mr Diaz
continued to yell at her:
‘Turn the machine down! You’re going too fast!’
[9] Mr Diaz was standing around a foot from Ms Murphy while he was saying this. He
also waved his arms in Ms Murphy’s face.6 They then had an argument about the speed of the
machine.
[10] Following this altercation Ms Murphy reduced the speed to 55,000 units per hour.
[11] That night Mr Diaz’s hand was sore.7
[12] The next day (31 March 2016) Ms Murphy was setting up the machine and went to the
feeder end to talk to Mr Diaz. She asked him how he was and he yelled at her ‘Go away!’ and
waved his arms at her.8
[13] Later that morning Mr Arduin was having a discussion with John Sfikas (Production
Shift Manager) and Ms Borsey near the Alpina machine. Mr Diaz began yelling at Mr Arduin
and complaining that the machine was running too fast. Mr Arduin told Ms Murphy to
maintain a speed where everyone was comfortable.9
[2016] FWC 5305
3
[14] Soon after that, Ms Borsey arranged for someone other than Mr Diaz to work as a
feeder with Ms Murphy.
[15] At around 1:30pm that day, Mr Arduin had a disciplinary meeting with Mr Diaz.
Mr Arduin made notes of the meeting, which he emailed to a number of managers. I consider
that they are a generally accurate summary of the discussion. They state as follows:
‘I had a discussion with William in my office this afternoon 1.35-2.20pm regarding his
behaviour this morning.
He says that after Julie said good morning to him and he replied with, “Please Julie do
not speak to me”. After much discussion around this topic I believe he eventually
understood that the company and I would not accept this behaviour and my
expectation is that he speaks to other employees civilly and any work-related matters
are discussed and worked on together as a team. He said that Julie asked him some
questions today regarding work and he responded with the answers, no issue.
I also touched on some other topics as listed below.
Communication is part of your job here at Anzpac and is expected
The company and I have a responsibility to ensure that all employees have a safe
place of work and that includes not being bullied or ostracised
Yelling and arguing on the factory floor is not acceptable behaviour
in regards to the sleeve work being run too fast the operator and I personally spoke
with the other feeders and stackers on different occasions and asked if they were able
to cope. Both responded with at times e.g. changing over pallets it was difficult but
we were able to do it without needing assistance…
In regards to his first aid report he said he will come to work tomorrow and go to the
doctor after work. I said that if his arm is that sore he should go straight to the doctor
today and not wait to get assessed. We will speak to him tomorrow if he does come
into work and determine the best course of action from here.’10
[16] That day (31 March 2016) Ms Wisely interviewed Ms Murphy about the incident with
Mr Diaz. Ms Murphy told Ms Wisely that she had ‘had enough’ and wanted to a make formal
complaint, which she subsequently submitted on 4 April 2016.11
[17] Ms Wisely conducted a number of interviews over the next few days.
[18] On 12 April 2016, Mr Arduin wrote a letter to the applicant, which included the
following:
‘You are required to attend a meeting at 2 pm Wednesday, 13 April, 2016 in the
Training Room to discuss reasons why the Company should not proceed to terminate
your employment as a result of unacceptable behaviour on your part and for which you
have received several previous warnings.
[2016] FWC 5305
4
Matters for discussion include your bullying and harassment of fellow employees in
the Operations departments including intimidation, insulting remarks, ignoring or
excluding an individual/s & public criticism.
A Chapel representative will be present at the meeting and a Human Resources
Department representative will also be present.
Please take this matter seriously as your employment is at risk.
Due to the serious nature of this matter you must refrain from engaging in any form of
retribution against or victimisation of a person you believe has assisted the company in
its enquiries over this matter or your employment will be terminated.’12
[19] Mr Arduin gave evidence, which I accept, that earlier that day he had met with
Mr Diaz and told him:
‘…that a complaint was made against him in relation to his ongoing conduct and
behaviour towards Ms Murphy which included the abusive incidents in late March and
ignoring her in the workplace.’13
[20] Mr Arduin, who had worked with Mr Diaz for many years, gave the following
evidence, which I accept:
‘In my experience with working with Mr Diaz, I have seen that he could become loud,
confrontational and fiery as he would often raise his voice in a somewhat explosive
manner. Such behaviour could happen almost anywhere in the workplace, whether it
would be on the factory floor, in a manager’s office, in the corridors or even during a
meeting...
In general, Mr Diaz worked with colleagues reasonably but if he did not agree with a
particular view, he could become very loud and direct in his response, which at times
created angst or developed into an argument.’14
[21] Mr Arduin gave evidence, which again I accept, that during the course of his
employment there were many occasions where he had discussions with Mr Diaz concerning
his confrontational manner which were not recorded in writing.15
[22] I am also satisfied that Mr Diaz had been given several warnings in relation to his
behaviour and conduct at work. I am satisfied that, at the very least, these included:
A written warning in November 2002 for abusive behaviour towards another
employee;16
A written warning in November 2009 for confrontational behaviour, including the
use of racist comments to another employee;17
A written warning in June 2010 for a number of ‘verbal assaults on people’;18
A verbal warning in May 2012 for raising his voice at another employee;19 and
A written warning in June 2012 for behaving in an unacceptable manner by raising
his voice, shouting and arguing with managers, crew leaders and peers.20
[2016] FWC 5305
5
[23] Mr Arduin’s contemporaneous notes concerning the applicant’s response to these
warnings typically included comments along the following lines:
‘I explained that although he recognises it is only his normal behaviour others at
Anzpac will not accept it and feel he is rude and intimidating when he speaks to people
with a raised voice’ (June 2010); and
‘Spoke to William regarding raising his voice at Joe. I explained in front of Anne that
this was the last time I would verbally warn him, any times in the future he would
receive a written warning. He said that it’s just him, I said it was unacceptable and to
fix it otherwise he will get a written warning (May 2012).21
[24] Ms Wisely gave evidence about what might be seen as typical conduct by Mr Diaz.
‘[Around December 2014] I recall Mr Diaz became very angry when I called him into
my office to tell him that his wages would be affected by the garnishee order.
He snatched the paperwork out of my hand and told me it was none of my business.
I recall I had to ask him to calm down and sit down while I explained that it had now
become the company’s business and the company had legal obligations to act on it.’22
[25] I am satisfied that the applicant attended several training sessions about bullying,
discrimination and harassment since 2002 as well as a one on one refresher training session in
2009 with Ms Wisely.23
[26] The applicant met with Mr Arduin and Ms McKenzie on 13 April 2016. Mr Diaz was
supported by Mr Alvial. I accept the version of the meeting set out in Ms McKenzie’s
statement. In particular, I am satisfied Mr Arduin explained to Mr Diaz that the company had
received a complaint from Ms Murphy about the applicant’s conduct towards her.
The allegations were read directly from Ms Murphy’s statement and Mr Diaz responded to the
allegations made.24
[27] Mr Arduin and Ms McKenzie then took a break from the meeting and held a
discussion with the General Manager, Mr Lowe. The decision was made to terminate the
applicant’s employment with immediate effect. Mr Diaz was advised accordingly, and
a payment in lieu of notice was processed the next day.
Consideration
[28] In considering whether I am satisfied that a dismissal is harsh unjust or unreasonable I
must take into account the criteria set out in s.387 of the Fair Work Act 2009. These are:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity
or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to
the capacity or conduct of the person; and
[2016] FWC 5305
6
(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support
person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the
person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal;
and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact
on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management
specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures
followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.
[29] I will consider each of these criteria in turn.
[30] I am satisfied that the respondent had a valid reason for the applicant’s dismissal.
There is no doubt that the applicant’s conduct towards Ms Murphy on 30 and 31 March 2016
was inappropriate. By itself it would not have justified the termination of the applicant’s
employment. However this instance of misconduct must be seen in the context of the
applicant’s long record of repeated inappropriate behaviour – most obviously getting angry
and shouting at his colleagues when something did not go his own way. It is not good enough
for the applicant to simply say that this is his nature. Moreover it is nonsense to suggest that it
is just the case of the applicant having a loud voice. What happened on 30 (and to some extent
the 31) March 2016 was just one occasion too many. The respondent was well within its
rights to dismiss Mr Diaz.
[31] I am satisfied that Mr Diaz had been notified of the allegations against him. While the
‘show cause’ letter was cast in rather general terms, he was told by Mr Arduin that the
meeting would primarily be about Ms Murphy’s complaint about his behaviour on 30 and
31 March. He had been told on many previous occasions about the respondent’s long standing
concerns with his inappropriate behaviour.
[32] Mr Diaz was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations at the meeting on
13 April 2016.
[33] Mr Diaz had a support person at the meeting on 13 April 2016. I note that the
applicant was not allowed to have the support person of his choice. I consider that in this case
the respondent had a sound reason for its decision that Mr Alvial (who was the union
delegate) should be the applicant’s support person.
[34] The dismissal related more to misconduct than poor performance. In any case the
applicant had had several warnings about his unacceptable behaviour.
[35] The respondent is a medium sized business, with qualified human resources
professionals. While its procedures were less than perfect, they were generally reasonable,
given its size.
[2016] FWC 5305
7
[36] I have had regard to the impact of the dismissal on the applicant’s personal
circumstances. However this must be weighed against the applicant’s failure to remedy his
own poor behaviour in the workplace – despite being given repeated opportunities to do so
over a long period of time. I am sure that the consequences of his dismissal weigh heavily on
the applicant. However they are the consequences of his own conduct, and he must take
responsibility for them.
[37] The applicant’s representative pointed to a number of weaknesses in the respondent’s
investigation. Some of these criticisms have merit. However they are largely irrelevant to the
issue before me. I am satisfied, based on the evidence presented in the proceedings before the
Commission, that the applicant engaged in the misconduct for which he was dismissed. I am
also satisfied that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, in that he was notified of the
reason for his dismissal and was given an opportunity to respond.
[38] In conclusion, I find that Mr Diaz’s dismissal was not unfair and his application is
dismissed.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Ms L Saunders of the AMWU appeared for the applicant
Mr C Watson of the Printing Industries Association of Australia appeared for the respondent
Hearing details:
2016
Sydney
3 and 4 August
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code C, PR583665
1 For example, see his reply at PN54
2 For example, he said, in response to a question from the Bench, at PN215-6 that he had not seen Ms Wisely’s statement,
yet in the first paragraph of his statement in reply (Exhibit D2) he said he had read Ms Wisely’s statement.
3 See PN129 - 159
4 Exhibit A2 paragraphs 38-, PN?
OF THE FAIR WORK THE COMMISSION THE SEAL
[2016] FWC 5305
8
5 PN784
6 Exhibit A1, paragraph 46, PN790-1
7 Exhibit D1, paragraph 40
8 Exhibit A2, paragraph 69
9 Exhibit A5, paragraphs 19-29
10 Exhibit A5, attachment SA3
11 Exhibit A3, paragraph 24
12 Exhibit D1, attachment WD-3
13 Exhibit A5, paragraph 46
14 Exhibit ,paragraphs 12, 14
15 Exhibit , paragraph 17
16 Exhibit A1, attachment LM1
17 Exhibit A1, attachment LM2
18 Exhibit A5, attachment SA1
19 Exhibit A5, attachment SA1
20 Exhibit A1, attachment LM3;
21 Exhibit A5, SA1
22 Exhibit A3, paragraphs 14-16
23 Exhibit A3, paragraphs 22-24
24 Exhibit A3, paragraphs 30-34
