Employee pressured to sign contract wins $42K unfair dismissal payout

A Melbourne sales rep who was dismissed for refusing to sign a contract has won over $42,000 at the Fair Work Commission. This massive unfair dismissal payout goes to show that pressuring an employee is something the Fair Work Commission won’t stand for.

In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal case – Clint Dupre v Excell Protective Group Pty Ltd [2024]. We also look at another recent case of a 21-year-old Auckland employee . The employee was pressured to sign an unfavourable contract and forced to take her lunch breaks at her desk. 

Employee pressured to sign new contract awarded $42K

Clint Dupre had been employed with Excell Protective Group for more than nine years. As the company’s business development manager, his role involved driving sales growth and managing client relations.

The relationship between Mr Dupre and Excell Protective Group remained stable until early 2024. This was when the company proposed new contracts for its senior staff, including Mr Dupre. These contracts were aimed at transitioning employees to a related entity, Zipd, with revised employment terms. The contracts included increased sales targets for commission and broader restrictions on post-employment activities.

Employer’s “campaign of pressure” to coerce employees

Mr Dupre expressed concerns about the new terms, specifically regarding the increased targets and restrictive clauses. However, despite raising these issues with management, his concerns were not adequately addressed.

On 3 April 2024, Excell Protective Group’s owner and chief executive held a meeting with the company’s managers. During the meeting, he stated that those who did not sign the new contract would be considered to have resigned. This statement marked the beginning of what the Fair Work Commission later described as a “campaign of pressure.” This aimed at compelling the managers, including Mr Dupre, to accept the new employment terms.

Mr Dupre, seeking advice from the employee rights organisation JobWatch the following day, made it clear that he was not willing to resign. He also stated that he could not accept the new contract without amendments. The situation escalated over the following days, culminating in a critical meeting on 11 April 2024.

Pressured employee is dismissed for not signing contract

At this meeting on 11 April 2024, Mr Dupre met with the company’s chief executive and culture manager to discuss the contract. He reiterated his refusal to sign the new contract in its proposed form and emphasised that he was not resigning.

However, during the meeting, the owner, growing frustrated with Mr Dupre’s refusal, told him to “finish up”. Effectively ending his employment. He subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission.

Fair Work Commission decides case

The Fair Work Commission found that chief executive’s statements during the April 11 meeting amounted to a dismissal, rather than a resignation. The fact that Mr Dupre was instructed to hand over his access fob and leave the premises also weighed toward this finding.

The Commission also noted that Mr Dupre had sought advice from Jobwatch the following day regarding his rights. This supported the contention that the chief executive had dismissed him during the meeting. Additionally, Excell Protective Group’s argument that Mr Dupre had the option to remain as an employee on his existing contract was rejected.

“At no stage did the employer offer [him] that alternative, either before, during or after the 11 April 2024 meeting,” the Fair Work Commission said.

Employee made “clear statement’ about not resigning

The Fair Work Commission found that the chief executive and culture manager had accepted that Mr Dupre had “made a clear statement” about not resigning. It therefore stated that there was “no plausible explanation” for him to make such a statement. “Other than in circumstances where he was being pressured to sign the new contract.”  

The commission did not accept Excell Protective Group’s argument that Mr Dupre’s statement “came out of the blue.” It also noted that following his termination, Mr Dupre had told a coworker that he had been dismissed. He had also “strenuously den[ied]” resigning in a letter to the capability manager.

Employee had no reason to resign

The Fair Work Commission acknowledged that there was “a lack of a credible motive for [him] to resign.” It noted that he had worked for the company for over nine years and had not set up alternative employment.

On the other hand, it was noted that Excell Protective Group was “motivated to get its senior staff on new contracts.” The commission highlighted that Mr Dupre’s refusal to sign despite “clearly frustrat[ed] those objectives.” The Fair Work Commission accepted that the chief executive told Mr Dupre to “finish up”. When asked by the culture manager when, he replied “now.”

“The [business development manager] was then directed to return his access fob, pack up his personal belongings and leave the building. With which directions he complied save for leaving some inconsequential personal items behind,” the Fair Work Commission stated.

Dismissal for refusing to sign contract ruled unfair

The Fair Work Commission found that Mr Dupre’s dismissal was not due to misconduct or poor performance. It stated that Excel Protective Group lacked “a sound, defensible or well-founded reason” for terminating him. The commission said that sacking Mr Dupre because he would not sign a new contract “cannot be considered to be misconduct, be that serious or any other kind.”

Several procedural failings on Excel Protective Group’s part were also highlighted, including the absence of a formal termination notice. Mr Dupre was not notified in “explicit, plain and clear terms” that his employment had been terminated. Nor was he given a valid reason for the dismissal. The company also failed to provide Mr Dupre with an opportunity to respond to any allegations about his performance or conduct.

Pressured employee wins huge unfair dismissal payout

As a result of these findings, the Fair Work Commission ruled that Mr Dupre had been unfairly dismissed. The commission ordered Excell Protective Group to pay him compensation totalling $42,552.06 plus superannuation. Reinstatement was not considered appropriate due to the breakdown of the employment relationship.

Pressured Employee told to take breaks at desk wins over $50K

Another recent case that involved an employee who was pressured by their employer was that of Auckland-based Courtney Brooker. The 21-year-old was awarded over NZD$50,000 following a ruling by New Zealand’s Employment Relations Authority. She was found to have been constructively dismissed after enduring mistreatment at the hands of her employer.

Ms Brooker had resigned from her position at the Auckland-based Japanese Car Parts Ltd on 7 November 2022. Citing that she “simply couldn’t take it any longer.” She had only been working for the company for 14 weeks.

Employee forced to come in to prove she was sick

During her short stint at Japanese Car Parts, Ms Booker was subjected to undue pressure from her employer. This included being forced to take her rest and lunch breaks at her desk. Where her boss, Ali Hassani, could monitor her.

On one occasion, Ms Brooker was required to come to work while she was unwell so that Mr Hassani could personally assess the extent of her illness. After arriving at work in visibly poor health, she was sent home.

She was also paid less than what she was owed and faced delays in receiving her wage arrears. Additionally, Ms Brooker’s contractual hourly rate was reduced unilaterally by Mr Hassani from $23 to $20. Unlawfully without consultation or proper justification.

Employee pressured to sign unlawful agreement

The workplace pressure and mistreatment Ms Brooker did not end there, however. Mr Hassani had also pressured her to sign an unlawful deduction from wages consent form. She was also pressured to sign an employment agreement that contained unfavourable terms. When she sought a meeting to discuss her concerns, Mr Hassani blamed her for not finalising the agreement.

Ms Brooker was also subjected to a sham disciplinary process after she raised concerns about her employment. The Employment Relations Authority found that Mr Hassani had started this process without providing any documentation or evidence to support his disciplinary actions.

Criticised for carrying out duties

Ms Brooker was also criticised by her boss for working outside as part of her duties, despite being instructed to do so. She was also scolded for using her phone during work hours. Despite being required to use it for elements of her role.

In addition, Ms Brooker was suspended without pay for a week, despite the company having no legal right to do so. She was also sub

Pressured employee secretly recorded employer

Japanese Car Parts disputed all of Ms Brooker’s claims, despite evidence from the company’s own witnesses corroborating much of her testimony. The Employment Relations Authority described Ms Brooker and her mother, who had appeared at the hearing, as “straightforward, truthful and credible witnesses.”

The authority also noted that Ms Brooker’s evidence was supported by transcripts of meetings with managers. She had secretly recorded these meetings due to concerns about her treatment. The Employment Relations Authority stated that the transcripts validated Brooker’s complaints, particularly her concerns regarding the company’s approach to her employment.

Authority rules employee was constructively dismissed

The Employment Relations Authority outlined that Japanese Car Parts had violated the Employment Relations Act in several ways. Many of these violations were linked to Mr Hassani, who was the director and 50 per cent shareholder in the company.

“These breaches were so serious that they contributed to the ending of her employment after only 14 weeks, which was a major setback for her,” the Employment Relations Authority said. It also noted that Ms Brooker resigned to “protect herself from the ongoing and inappropriate pressure” from Mr Hasani. “There was nothing to indicate that would not continue had she not resigned,” the authority stated.

The Employment Relations Authority found that Japanese Car Parts had adopted an “aggressive and adversarial” approach towards Ms Brooker during her employment and in its defence of her claims. According to the ruling, Ms Brooker was subject to unfair treatment that created a hostile work environment, ultimately leading to her resignation.

The authority noted that the unfair treatment Ms Brooker experienced was visible to other employees, including her manager, but was not addressed by the company.

Employee wins huge unfair dismissal payout

As a result of its findings, the Employment Relations Authority ordered Japanese Car Parts to pay Ms Brooker a total of NZ$50,290 in penalties and compensation. This included $13,000 in penalties, with $8,000 to be paid directly to Ms Brooker. The company was also ordered to pay her $3,000 in compensation for unfair bargaining and $7,000 in compensation for distress related to her suspension. 

She also received $21,250 for distress arising from her constructive dismissal claim, and $11,040 in gross lost remuneration. “There was a particular need to emphasise to JCP, its director Hassani and to other employers more generally, that the requirement on an employer to meet contractual and statutory obligations must be taken seriously,” the Employment Relations Authority said.

Have you been unfairly dismissed?

Our team at A Whole New Approach are highly experienced mediators who can help you take action through the Fair Work Commission. Note, we are not lawyerrs. We work with employees in every state and territory and have helped over 16,000 employees over the last 30 years.

If you have been unfairly dismissed, faced discrimination, adverse action or harassment, call us today. We can help you understand what you need to do to take action via the Fair Work Commission.

Time is of the essence, as you only have 21 days from the date of your dismissal to lodge a claim. Call us on 1800 333 666 for a free and private discussion about your situation.

Articles similar to: Pressured employees win huge unfair dismissal payouts.

Dismissed for disobedience: When workers make a stand

What determines an unfair dismissal payout?

4 huge Vic unfair dismissal payouts