A lesson in fairness: Lack of valid reason makes childcare worker’s dismissal unfair

The Fair Work Commission (Commission) has highlighted that in determining if a dismissal is unfair, they will consider whether the employer had a valid reason for dismissal relating to the person’s capacity or conduct. In the case of Suganthi Manimaran v Guardian Community Early Learning Centres Pty Ltd, the Commission held that there was no valid reason for Ms Manimaran’s dismissal, as she had not actually done anything wrong.

Key facts

The employee, Ms Manimaran, was employed as a childcare worker for Guardian Community Early Learning Centres Pty Ltd (Guardian). Ms Manimaran was dismissed in September 2024 after Guardian accused her of breaching the company’s policies on confidentiality and professionalism.

The case centred on accusations made by the centre manager, Ms Karp, including a claim that Ms Manimaran had engaged in ongoing inappropriate discussions with families at the centre by sharing her visa status with parents. Guardian claimed that this negatively impacted the company’s reputation and commerciality and was in breach of their policies. Guardian also stated that Ms Manimaran had been warned about similar conduct on 13 September 2024, before her eventual dismissal.

However, after hearing from all parties, the Fair Work Commission found that there was no valid reason for her dismissal, as Ms Manimaran had not engaged in the behaviour alleged by her employer. The Commission found that it was actually Ms Karp herself who had told a parent about the employee’s visa status. Even if Ms Manimaran had discussed her visa with families at the centre, the Commission found that the conduct would not have contravened the code of conduct or the company’s policy on communicating with families.

The Commission also concluded that the allegations regarding her conduct had no substantial impact on the company’s reputation or viability. The termination letter sent to Ms Manimaran stated that her conduct had damaged Guardian’s ‘commerciality’, which the Commission assumed would mean Guardian’s business. The Commission found that this was not the case.

Application of s387 of the Fair Work Act 2009

In considering whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission weighed up the considerations in s387 as follows:

• There was no valid reason for Ms Manimaran’s dismissal, as she did nothing wrong (s387(a));
• Ms Manimaran was notified of a reason for dismissal, but not a valid one (s387(b));
• She had an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her (s387(c));
• She was not unreasonably refused a support person (s387(d)); and
• She was not warned about her performance (s387(e));
  • The warning that Ms Manimaran received on 13 September 2024 was about allegations relating to her conduct, not her performance, and these allegations were not substantiated.

In light of these factors, the Commission found the dismissal to be unfair because Ms Manimaran did not do the things of which she was accused. Even if she had, the behaviour would not have breached any of the workplace policies. And even if her behaviour did breach a policy, dismissal was a disproportionate outcome. Reinstatement was found to be inappropriate, as Ms Manimaran’s present visa did not allow her to work. Rather, she was ordered compensation up to the end date of her visa.

Key takeaways

Where employers seek to dismiss an employee for breaching company policies, they need to ensure the expectations outlined in policies are clear, employees are aware of the expectations, and any allegations those policies were breached are substantiated having regard to the evidence available.

If you require assistance preparing workplace policies, or advice regarding potential breaches of workplace policies, please contact our NRA Legal on 1800 572 679.