| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant questioned by supervisor (“L”) as to whether always charging for excess baggage - Applicant replied in the negative and said was own form of protest in relation to ongoing industrial action in workplace - Next day applicant suspended - Following disciplinary process applicant dismissed for serious misconduct - Applicant complained about initial interview with L and use of his response that actions were form of protest in respondent’s decision to dismiss - Claimed respondent did not have open mind when considering applicant’s explanation, especially in light of open reporting system in workplace - Claimed because of questions respondent asked gathered inaccurate information about extent to which what applicant did also being done by other employees - Authority found respondent entitled to refer to applicant’s explanation when initially asked if correctly charging for excess baggage as part of decision to dismiss - Found when applicant first questioned no decision had been made about any disciplinary process - Respondent entitled to ask applicant about issue before engaging any disciplinary process - Questioning was very brief and would have been artificial to say should have been stopped before applicant referred to industrial situation - Authority accepted L simply sought clarification by putting to applicant for comment what she had taken his response to mean - Authority found respondent’s managers listened to, clarified and tested applicant’s explanations before reaching any conclusions - Found respondent did reject many of applicant’s explanations but were good reasons for doing so - Authority concluded respondent gave applicant’s explanations unbiased consideration, free from predetermination and uninfluenced by irrelevant considerations - Evidence before Authority did not support existence of systematic type of transferring of reasonably large amounts of excess weight between passengers, at least partly because of the industrial situation, which was what applicant did - Authority concluded respondent’s questions did not elicit inaccurate information - Authority found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified - Traffic supervisor |