iscover
A Queensland man was fired because of his behaviour towards his employees, including against one who told a court he resigned after the mistreatment and took a job that paid $50,000 less.
Matthias Dorsch, a former employee of HEAD Oceania, was fired in December 2021 because of his treatment towards subordinate employees, which the Federal Court noted led to a number of them making complaints about him or resigning from their positions.
Back in May, Justice Elizabeth Raper tossed out Dorsch’s claim that HEAD Oceania did not have grounds to summarily terminate his employment, but she did order the company to pay a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $17,000 for failing to pay annual leave entitlements.
In the original May judgment, Justice Raper said Dorsch had become “increasingly worn down by work” and believed employees were “not working to the standard needed to be performed” to ensure the Australian office was aligned with international demands.
In the evidence of the subordinate employees, Dorsch was said to have “routinely” sworn at them, was a “hard task-master”, would bang his fist on the table when dealing with them, and “was critical and insensitive to their personal concerns”.
“In addition, he lacked insight as to the effect his behaviour had on others: Dorsch is an imposing figure. He is extremely tall and wiry. He speaks directly. Employees appealed directly to him regarding his conduct; however, he did not take such appeals on board,” Justice Raper said in her written reasons for judgment.
One employee told Justice Raper he resigned because of Dorsch’s conduct towards him and in circumstances where he took another position with a HEAD Oceania client for $50,000 less per annum.
While Justice Raper accepted it was a workplace where employees would routinely swear, the evidence established they did not swear at each other or “behaved in the way that Dorsch did”.
“Holding that position of power must be taken into account given the effect of Dorsch’s swearing around or towards others will be different. He sets the standard for the workplace. Employees will be limited in their ability to call out such behaviour,” Justice Raper said.
After Justice Raper dismissed Dorsch’s matter, he made an application for leave to appeal. While Justices Leslie Snaden, Adam Hatcher and Yaseen Shariff did grant him leave to appeal – despite it being filed out of time – they found it should also be dismissed.
In the 10 grounds of appeal, Dorsch claimed there were issues in the identification of two HEAD Oceania superiors as “agents” and a failure by Justice Raper in rejecting four of his claims.
In the first issue, Dorsch submitted that HEAD Oceania’s constitution vests the management of the company in its directors and contended that one of the executives was not an employee or officer and so did not have the actual or apparent authority to terminate him.
“In any event, the primary judge’s findings that [the superior] had the authority to make the decision to terminate Dorsch’s employment as an agent of Head Oceania accorded with the overwhelming weight of evidence in the proceedings below,” the appeal bench said.
The May judgment is Dorsch v HEAD Oceania Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 162 (28 February 2024).
The October judgment is Dorsch v HEAD Oceania Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 133.
