| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant alleged unjustifiably disadvantaged by demotion - Applicant had agreed to variation - Authority did not accept any bullying or intimidation by respondent - No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant dismissed after arguing with another employee in store - Principal submission regarding lack of substantive justification rested on applicant's evidence about pronunciation of swear word - Authority did not accept evidence or that explanation given to respondent - Also submitted not language that could cause offence - Word used not at foul end of scale, although not one customer service employee should use in hearing of customers - Circumstances in which used relevant - Word used in public part of store, in hearing of customers, by someone who had recently been in management position and remained supervisor - Not acceptable - Might have called for lesser sanction if were mitigating circumstances - However, no provocation to justify response - Also, applicant not model employee, rather had history of performance problems - Substantive grounds to dismiss - While applicant should have had opportunity to respond to other employee's account of event, failure did not vitiate dismissal - Differences in detail not material and did not affect conclusion respondent reached about applicant's conduct - Dismissal procedure not so flawed as to render dismissal unjustified - Dismissal justified - Length of service seven months before alleged disadvantage, one year five months until dismissal - Checkout supervisor |