| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant, now Human Resources Manger for respondent, was senior police officer who conducted inquiries into certain alleged rapes by police officers – Alleged rapes in the news in 2004 - Applicant attracted considerable media attention over handling of original inquiries – Took special leave on full pay while Commission of Inquiry completed work – Subsequently returned to work – Alleged four incidents were unjustified actions – Firstly, alleged flawed inquiry into whereabouts of employment records – Shortly before leave, Chief Executive unable to locate applicant’s recruitment information – Applicant alleged had been no written agreement but CEO disagreed – Inquiry into missing documents - CEO found not possible to establish what had happened and no further action taken – No adverse finding/sanction on applicant – Applicant alleged had not been cleared of wrongdoing – No unjustified disadvantage – Secondly, applicant alleged unjustified action by restrictions placed on him upon return to work – Commission had adjourned investigation for unspecified period – Conditions placed on applicant on return (induction/briefing process, not to investigate complaints unless directed (especially involving sexual harassment and/or bullying), to be sensitive to staff apprehensions, and not to perform as acting CEO) – Restrictions justified and reasonable - No unjustified disadvantage – Thirdly, alleged failure to address concerns – Satisfied respondent listened to concerns – No unjustified disadvantage – Fourthly, alleged unjustified warning – Before recommenced duties, applicant entered workplace when told not to - Received warning – Warning disadvantage but justified - No personal grievance |