| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant dismissed for repeated lateness to work – Shifts set out in collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Applicant’s shift started at 8am - Applicant did not dispute long-standing problems with lateness to work – In meeting with plant manager (“M”), applicant claimed late because had trouble sleeping – Applicant claimed reached agreement with M to change work hours so started half hour later – Applicant produced unsigned memorandum as evidence of agreement – No suggestion applicant fabricated document - M no longer with respondent but had no recollection of agreement – Authority found payroll adjusted to accommodate later start time – Found memorandum not of itself evidence of agreement between parties – Found document not of sort anticipated by CEA as variation to CEA - Applicant received verbal warning following confrontation with co-worker – Warning letter also noted applicant late for work, stating start time of 8am – Applicant received written warning for lateness – Applicant claimed not a morning person and that felt singled out as others also late – In meeting, no mention made of agreement for applicant to start work late – Respondent told applicant timekeeping serious issue and must be at work at 8am – Applicant late several times in following month – Further disciplinary meeting held – Respondent stated wanted all workers starting at 8am – Second written warning issued – Applicant again late for work – Applicant dismissed – Authority found applicant’s chronic lateness capable of amounting to serious misconduct where continued after repeated warnings – Authority found regardless of whether parties agreed to late start time, respondent entitled to reassert 8am start time – Found respondent clearly did so – Found applicant not “picked on” and no evidence of disparity of treatment – Found applicant guilty of conduct, was warned appropriately at escalating levels, did not correct conduct and explanations not acceptable – Dismissal justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant alleged suffered ongoing disadvantage as result of disciplinary warnings – Authority found refusal to sign warning letters did not amount to raising personal grievance – Found grievances not raised in time - Applicant had not applied for leave to raise grievances out of time – Found other matters not properly before Authority so Authority to take them no further – No unjustified disadvantage - Die setter |