Case Study Analysis: Performance Management and Employment Law Issues

This case study analyzes performance management practices through the lens of legal cases involving unfair dismissal. It examines the importance of clear policies, proper documentation, and procedural fairness in handling employee performance issues. The analysis highlights the consequences of failing to adhere to these principles, such as the loss of unfair dismissal cases and the waste of organizational resources. The cases of Aly V Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Madrigal Engineering, Heidi Cannon V Mornington Peninsula-based poultry farm, Diana Menabue V V Bush in Altona, and Anderson V Thiess Pty Ltd are discussed to illustrate the significance of providing warnings, allowing employees to respond to allegations, and avoiding discrimination. The study emphasizes the need for a robust performance management system to prevent legal challenges and ensure fair treatment of employees, ultimately contributing to organizational efficiency and success. The document includes references to relevant legal and management literature.

Running head: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 1
Performance management
Student Name
Institution

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 2
In the case provided before fair work Australia, a plumbing manager lost his job because he
failed to follow the set policies of the organization. The company had given clear instructions but the
employee acted against the policies. This is not the case with Madrigal Engineering supervisor who
sacked an employee and there was no set policies and no clear instructions on how to perform the
duties. In the case of Aly V Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Aly was warned for not following
management set procedures and policies. Feedbacks inform of warning will help the organization win
cases of unfair dismissal. For the case of Madrigal Engineering, the supervisor did not warn Oscar against
coming to work late or even misconduct. Aly lost the unfair dismissal case as the Bank could prove that
the employee did not follow the set standards. The decision was backed by contents of minutes of
meetings that set the policies. Madrigal Engineering had poor documentation and they could not
support the decision to dismiss Oscar and led to loss of the case.
The firm is also supposed to provide procedural fairness when dismissing employees. In the
cases of Heidi Cannon V Mornington Peninsula-based poultry farm and Diana Menabue V V Bush in
Altona, Heidi and Diana fought successfully against dismissal on the spot by the firm. Madrigal
Engineering did not give Oscar a chance to respond to the allegations and that is why they lost the case.
Employee should be given a chance to defend themselves as sacking on the spot is illegal and employers
loss such unfair dismissal cases. The procedure also involves investigating the allegations against the
employees so as to avoid unfair dismissal. Employees who commit same mistakes should bear the same
punishment regardless of the gender involved.
In the case of Anderson V Thiess Pty Ltd [2014], Anderson was sacked for sending offensive
message but won the case on the grounds that , no written warning was issued. In the case of Madrigal
Engineering, the supervisor did not ask the employee why he was having misconducts and reporting to
work late. Employees should also be treated fairly for effective performance management system and

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 3
avoid adverse industrial hearings. Employees should not be discriminated on the bases of the race,
origin, skin colour or even religion. Fairness should be granted to all employees when decisions are
being made. In madrigal Engineering, Oscar claimed that he was sacked because he did not belong to
the same ethnic back ground as the supervisor. Without clear documentation and procedures to back
the dismissal decision, Oscar will win the case by arguing using discrimination laws.
In conclusion, without strong performance management system, the organization will waste a
lot of resources through retention of inefficient workers and legal fees due to poor decisions. It is
therefore, important that this organization should employ the performance management model that
suits the needs of the firm. Proper documentation is also important in helping the firm make critical
decisions which can result to industrial hearings.
References
Bray, M., & Stewart, A. (2013). From the arbitration system to the Fair Work Act: the changing approach
in Australia to voice and representation at work. Adel. L. Rev., 34, 21.
De Waal, A. (2013). Strategic Performance Management: A managerial and behavioral
approach. Palgrave Macmillan.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 4
DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management and
improving individual performance: A motivational framework. management and
Organization Review, 2(2), 253-277.
Moynihan, D. P., & Lavertu, S. (2012). Does involvement in performance management routines
encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public
Administration Review, 72(4), 592-602.
Neves, P., & Eisenberger, R. (2012). Management communication and employee performance:
The contribution of perceived organizational support. Human Performance, 25(5), 452-
464.
Pollitt, C. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation, 19(4), 346-363.
Rolstadås, A. (Ed.). (2012). Performance management: A business process benchmarking
approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
Stewart, A. (2011). Fair Work Australia: The Commission Reborn?. Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(5),
563-577.
Stewart, A. (2013). Stewart's guide to employment law (Vol. 3). Sydney: Federation Press.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 5