13 June Dismissal during the Minimum Employment Period June 13, 2018 By Reef Admin Temination of employment 0 One of the most common questions our Workplace Relations Advisors are asked is whether an employer is required to give a reason for the dismissal of an employee if they’re within their Minimum Employment Period. The Minimum Employment Period – or MEP – is commonly referred to as the “probationary period”, though they aren’t strictly the same thing. The MEP is the statutory period during which an employee is not able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal against their employer and it’s length depends on the number of employees employed by the business. For a business with 14 or fewer employees, the MEP is 12 months. Where a business has 15 or more employees, it’s six months. While employers are not obliged to provide a reason for dismissal, it’s often advisable to do so. If you don’t, it may provoke the employee to seek alternative remedies concerning their termination. Consider a situation where an employer doesn’t provide a reason for terminating an employee, but the employee thinks there is an ulterior motive. The employee may feel this way because, not long before the termination, they questioned their right to be paid a higher car allowance. They’ve since formed the opinion that this enquiry is the reason for their termination. In such a case, the employee would not be able to bring an unfair dismissal claim against the employer if they were still within the MEP. However, the employee could commence an action under the General Protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 on the basis that there was a belief that the termination was motivated for an unlawful reason (in this case, the enquiry about the right to be paid a higher car allowance). The MEP is no protection against a General Protections claim, which partly explains why this type of claim is rapidly growing in popularity. Importantly, there’s a reverse onus of proof associated with such claims, which means an employer needs to prove the dismissal wasn’t because of the reason stated by the employee. This, in part, explains why REEF often advises real estate employers to divulge to the employee the reason for terminating their employment within the MEP and to also keep records of any performance management actions taken during the MEP. The bottom line While employers are not obliged to provide a reason for dismissal of an employee within their Minimum Employment Period, it is often advisable to do so. Otherwise, it may provoke an employee to commence an alternative action in relation to the dismissal. Related Counting down the days: Employee absence during a probation period How does an employee's absence during their probation period affect their ability to bring an unfair dismissal claim? Does it extend their probation period or Minimum Period of Employment? Is there a minimum notice period for casual employees? Most employers know that there is a minimum notice period that must be given when terminating a full-time or part-time employee. But what about a casual employee? Notice periods: When it all comes to an end How much notice needs to be given when bringing an employment relationship to an end? Here we answer some common questions about minimum notice periods for termination. Keeping post-employment restraints intact Enforcing a post-employment restraint can be extremely complex – and expensive! Matthew Robinson provides tips to help members through the process and maximise their chances of success. Probation completed: Can an employee claim unfair dismissal? Members are often confused about whether an employee is eligible to claim unfair dismissal if they are terminated following the completion of the agreed probation period. Court finds 15km post-employment restraint reasonable One of the most common problems faced by real estate employers is what to do to protect the commercial goodwill of the business from exploitation by ex-employees. REEF's Workplace Relations Advisor, Laura Clark, examines this all to common problem and details a recent Supreme Court case where a real estate employer successfully had a post-employment restraint upheld. Comments are closed.