Managing underperformance can be challenging, especially when an employee shows some improvement but still fails to meet the expected standards. In a recent case, Taylor v CJD Equipment Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2078, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) upheld the dismissal of a Regional Sales Manager after a lengthy performance review process revealed that the employee failed to meet the minimum quality standards of his role.
Background
The employee had been placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in February 2023 after a review showed a significant drop in year-on-year quotes compared to other sales representatives. The employer raised concerns about the employee’s lack of face-to-face (FtF) client interactions, poor quote delivery, and uncontacted customers.
Despite the PIP concluding in June 2023, the employer found that the employee’s performance was still below expectations. Although the employee disagreed, insisting his performance had improved, the employer noted continued shortcomings, particularly in the volume of FtF interactions.
Two meetings were held in October and November 2023 to address these concerns, but the employee’s performance remained below par. As a result:
– In November 2023, the employer issued a first warning, acknowledging slight improvement but highlighting the failure to proactively address FtF interactions and sales quoting.
– In February 2024, a final warning was issued after the employee failed to meet FtF targets and entered inaccurate data into the employer’s system, incorrectly marking six customers as inactive.
During the final review period in February 2024, the employer found that although the employee was on track to meet targets, the quality of his work remained substandard. Additionally, there was evidence suggesting the employee manipulated data to falsely meet his targets. This led to his dismissal in March 2024.
The FWC’s Decision
The employee claimed his dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. He argued that the KPIs set under the PIP were excessively high and that the warnings were based on false and vague accusations.
The FWC, however, found that the PIP was reasonable and the warnings were a legitimate appraisal of the employee’s performance. The Commission noted that while not meeting a KPI alone is insufficient to justify dismissal, the broader context of the employee’s role and performance must be considered.
The FWC highlighted that the employee had failed to meet critical expectations over a prolonged period, despite his experience and the fact that he had been in the role for over three years. The decision emphasized the importance of the **”intentionality, quality of interaction with customers, and engagement in activities”** relevant to the employee’s responsibilities as Regional Sales Manager.
The FWC concluded that while the employee had shown some improvement, his overall work quality and willingness to meet his KPIs fell short of what was reasonably expected. Additionally, the FWC found that the employer had afforded the employee procedural fairness by giving him multiple opportunities to improve and issuing two clear warnings.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case underscores that underperformance must be managed carefully, and a failure to show significant improvement over time can justify dismissal. Employers should ensure:
– Employees are given sufficient time and support to improve their performance.
– Clear expectations and measurable KPIs are provided.
– Multiple opportunities and warnings are issued before considering termination.
Employers must also ensure that any dismissal is procedurally fair, as the FWC will closely examine the steps taken to support and manage underperforming employees before disciplinary action is enforced.
—
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please seek professional advice for specific circumstances.
