A senior surveyor's unfair dismissal claim has sparked a heated debate, revealing a complex web of performance management, personal tragedy, and conflicting interests. But was it truly unfair?
The Case:
A senior surveyor, employed by a Victorian government department since 2020, was dismissed in April 2025 after a lengthy performance management process. The worker argued that his termination was unjustified, citing four performance improvement plans and a lack of adequate training and resources. He claimed his performance was unfairly assessed and that he was not given a fair chance to succeed.
The Background:
Initially working on the Digital Cadastre Modernisation Project, the worker was considered an expert in certain areas. However, when the project ended in June 2023, he transitioned to a new role in Land Reform Projects. Despite this, he remained involved in the digital cadastre work, which he preferred, at the request of colleagues and superiors.
Performance Concerns:
Almost immediately after starting his new role, the worker's manager raised concerns about his performance, believing his involvement in the digital cadastre project was hindering his new responsibilities. The manager's frustration grew throughout 2023 and 2024, leading to multiple performance improvement plans and a show cause process.
Personal Tragedy and Performance:
The worker's performance was further impacted by personal tragedy. After the sudden death of his father-in-law, the manager decided to allocate a new task instead of implementing an informal performance plan. Later, the worker contracted COVID-19 and experienced the loss of his father, which affected his ability to complete tasks.
The Termination:
In March 2025, the worker was informed of the department's intention to terminate his employment due to unsatisfactory performance. Despite a lengthy dispute process and a voluminous unfair dismissal application, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found a valid reason for dismissal, concluding that the worker's performance did not meet the required standard, even after ample opportunities to improve.
Controversy and Comment:
The case raises questions about the fairness of performance management processes and the impact of personal circumstances on work performance. Was the worker's preference for the digital cadastre project a reasonable justification for his continued involvement? Did the employer provide sufficient support and resources during the performance management process? And, ultimately, was the dismissal truly harsh, unjust, or unreasonable?
What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let's explore the complexities of this intriguing case together.
