| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant under verbal warning for lateness – Two disciplinary meetings held – Second disciplinary meeting culminated in dismissal – Dismissal letter stated reasons being three days absence, notification of absence on those days, sick leave record, impact on business and staff morale and poor performance – Respondent argued applicant lied, intentionally disrupted operations, and did not acknowledge or agree to change high absence rate and poor communication – Issue whether fair and reasonable employer would have dismissed applicant for reasons set out in dismissal letter – Authority found applicant on sufficient notice of employer’s concerns about timekeeping, sick leave, work performance and impact of those on staff morale – However, found respondent did not properly satisfy itself that applicant’s performance below standard, in order to justify summary dismissal for serious misconduct – Found lateness only one or two minutes – Found one day of absenteeism was suspension, not sick leave – Applicant fulfilled contractual requirements to notify in advance of absence where ill – No requirement applicant must undertake overtime as directed – Found applicant’s comments that thought would be dismissed and had prospects for new job not misconduct and irrelevant to substantive issues – No evidence applicant’s absence intended to disrupt respondent – Respondent obliged to follow own House Rules by issuing final warning regarding improving attitude and work performance – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Applicant found alternative employment eight weeks later – Authority found applicant self-imposed limits on employment options – Applicant entitled to one month’s lost wages – Found little evidence of hurt and humiliation – $5,000 compensation appropriate – Applicant’s behaviour regarding timekeeping problems and performance close to contributory conduct – However, having regard to modest remedies awarded, respondent’s obligations to follow own disciplinary process and finding that applicant should only have received final warning, no contributory conduct appropriate |