| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against applicant regarding five allegations of dishonest conduct – Respondent alleged applicant stole money during transactions, gave away free drinks, breached TAB procedures, used improper processes with gaming machines causing respondent loss, and personally charged patron when drove him home from workplace - Applicant summarily dismissed after second disciplinary meeting – Regarding allegations of theft and giving away free drinks, Authority preferred evidence of applicant and witness over unclear video camera footage – Regarding TAB allegation, Authority found respondent’s copy of employment agreement (“EA”) contained different TAB protocol to applicant’s, and applicant’s behaviour permitted under his copy - Found applicant able to explain another of allegations as poor training – Authority found complaint relating to gaming machines already raised and brought to end at time events occurred – Found not appropriate for respondent to re-litigate issue – Found only allegation made out was that applicant charged patron for ride home – Found applicant apologised and explained behaviour in meetings – Found dismissal based solely on ride home allegation would have been inappropriate and unfair response – Found insufficient evidence of other allegations which respondent also based dismissal on - Dismissal unjustified – Authority rejected respondent’s argument that first meeting not disciplinary in nature - Applicant invited to disciplinary meeting immediately after return from annual leave, without being advised of subject matter or opportunity to obtain legal advice - Authority accepted respondent’s evidence that applicant cheeky and disrespectful in first disciplinary meeting, but found did not excuse respondent’s failure to conduct proper inquiry – Found applicant’s lawyer unable to attend second meeting and applicant believed had no right to leave meeting because was on paid time – Dismissal procedurally unjustified – Authority found unnecessary to consider applicant’s claims of breach of good faith and breach of term of EA as matters dealt with under head of grievance – REMEDIES – 15 percent contributory conduct reflected applicant’s negative demeanour in disciplinary meetings – Respondent argued failed to mitigate losses and seek reemployment - Applicant claimed entitled to lost wages as dismissal for dishonesty and embarrassment at events prevented reengaging with industry – Authority found significant contribution to lost wages appropriate – Authority found applicant’s evidence of hurt, humiliation and injury to feelings was clear - Compensation awarded - Administration of justice and contempt of Authority issue - After investigation meeting, applicant advised Authority employee of respondent subjected to punitive action by respondent allegedly as penalty for giving evidence for applicant – Respondent argued punitive action legitimate and unrelated to investigation meeting – Authority held second investigation meeting – Authority found impetus of decision to exclude employee from workplace came from floor management on duty at time, not respondent’s management involved in employment dispute with applicant - Barman |