b'CASE LAW DISMISSALHanna Wittner v Glad Security Pty. Ltd [2025] FWC 676What happened: The worker was employed by Glad Security Pty Ltd and placed under a labour hire agreement at Eastland ShoppingCentre in Melbourne. In January, while working at the information desk, an employee from Results Laser Clinicdropped off a gift vouchera facial treatment voucher wrapped in a white envelope with a green bow. The ResultsLaser Clinic employee said the voucher was "for anyone to use."Unaware that the voucher was part of the shopping centres Golden Giveaway promotion, and seeing that no oneelse at the desk showed interest, the worker said she would take the voucher. A couple of days later, shoppingcentre management followed up with Results Laser Clinic to ask about the voucher. They were told it had been dropped off at the information desk. The workers manager then tried to retrieve thevoucher, but due to incomplete communications and the workers belief that she had done nothing wrong, theretrieval process was delayed.Eventually, the worker said she could not find the voucher and suggested it be cancelled. This situation damagedher reputation with the shopping centre management, who requested that she be "removed" from the role.An investigation by Glad Security found that the worker did not intend to steal the voucher but concluded that sheshould have informed her manager, who was not on shift that day. Because the shopping centre managementexercised its contractual right to request her removal, the worker was offered a cleaning position elsewhere, whichshe declined.During the investigation, it was noted that although the worker clarified she had no interest in keeping or using thevoucher and suggested cancellation if it could not be found, her conduct contributed to escalating the situation. Itwas observed that she should have committed to looking for the voucher promptly to return it, which might haveprevented the escalation.Outcome: The Commissioner found that the workers dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Although theworker did not intend to steal the voucher, her failure to promptly return the voucher escalated the situation.The shopping centre requested her removal, which prevented her from performing her job. The dismissal wasbased on the clients contractual right to require removal of personnel they found objectionable, a valid andlawful reason as it meant the employee was unable to perform the inherent requirements of her role.Consequently, the workers application was dismissed.Practical Implementation/Learnings: 1.When an employment contract allows a client to request removal of personnel, employers may rely on this tolawfully terminate employment if the request makes continued work impossible2.Failing to promptly return an item or cooperate with reasonable requestseven without dishonest intentcanescalate a situation unnecessarily.Page | 30 IR Update July 2025'