Implied duties in the workplace
The court addressed whether the employment contract contained an implied term requiring the employer to comply with its internal company policies, which included the employee handbook, ethics code, and anti-harassment policy.
The court referred to a previous decision which found such a term would create too much uncertainty in employment contracts: “given that the [worker] had pleaded that the [employer] was obliged to comply with all of its internal policies, there was significant uncertainty over which of the [employer’s] documents constitute such internal policies… even if all of the internal policies could be ascertained, it is uncertain which part of such policies should be regarded as statements which are contractually binding.”
The court struck out the worker’s claim that an implied term obliged the employer to comply with internal policies, finding it legally unsustainable. The employee handbook explicitly stated it “does not constitute a contract of employment or a guarantee that your employment will continue for any specified period of time,” which supported this conclusion.
Career opportunities claims assessment
Regarding lost career opportunities, the worker initially claimed he was “unfairly sidelined and/or excluded from several opportunities for potential career advancements within the organisation.” His pleadings were unclear about which opportunities he meant and who had sidelined him.
During the hearing, he clarified he was claiming for the loss of chance to secure career opportunities from three third-party entities related to the employer, not from the employer’s own organisation. This distinction was important because different legal tests apply depending on the source of the opportunities.
