| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Summary dismissal - Serious misconduct - Manager and applicant friends prior to employment - Employed at drop-in centre by manager - Applicant claimed manager's attitude towards her affected by out-of-work issues - Incident occurred involving visitor inhaling a white powder in centre lounge - Applicant claimed did not see incident and thus unable to intervene - Respondent believed applicant should have seen incident - Manager received complaints applicant present and did nothing to prevent or stop incident - Applicant handed letter of suspension with immediate effect - Told support person unnecessary and would be given opportunity to explain at investigation - Investigation held and applicant subsequently dismissed - Incident constituted serious breach of policy - Applicant aware of policies - Satisfied applicant did not see incident - Complainants not available at investigation meeting - Respondent deemed failure to observe incident serious misconduct, and concluded she deliberately condoned incident - Knowledge of identity of complainants denied on ground might intimidate them - Respondent gave too little weight to applicant's handling of prior similar incident - Respondent created expectation applicant would have opportunity to comment prior to confirmation of penalty - Fair and reasonable employer would have considered matters and found if misconduct occurred, remedy short of dismissal appropriate - With exception of summary suspension, investigation process generally fair - Alleged conduct not capable in circumstances of amounting to serious misconduct - Dismissal unjustified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Claimed denied opportunity to be heard prior suspension - Grievance not raised within 90 days - No application to raise grievance out of time - Grievance time-barred - However, given method suspension imposed unsatisfactory, matter considered globally in remedies - Community worker |