| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed disestablishment of position as Manager of Standards and Training, without adequate consultation and in breach of good faith obligations forced him to commence lesser role of Check and Training Captain - Applicant claimed action either unjustified disadvantage or unjustified constructive dismissal - Claimed number of respondent’s actions unjustified and caused applicant to suffer from fatigue, stress and develop clinical depression - Claimed respondent’s decision to terminate employment on medical grounds was unjustified because respondent failed to correctly consult and because was disparity of treatment - Applicant claimed respondent refused to allow him to join superannuation scheme - Authority found applicant not employed under relevant collective agreement so not entitled to join scheme - Found applicant sent information about scheme in genuine error - Found even if applicant could have been disadvantaged by denial of access to scheme, grievance not raised within 90 day period - Applicant claimed respondent failed to conduct annual performance and salary reviews as required by employment agreement - Authority found conduct of annual performance and salary reviews matter of contractual entitlement - Found while entitled to have performance assessed no corresponding entitlement for assessment to result in salary increases - Found failure to carry out performance review or late performance reviews did not cause applicant disadvantage - Found applicant received all contractual payments and had no outstanding claims in respect to performance review or salary payments - Applicant claimed respondent failed to make back payment of agreed salary increase - Authority found as no contractual entitlement to back payment no contractual entitlement to interest on back payment - Applicant's claim rejected - Authority found Check and Training Captain position at least in part created to allow applicant to relocate - Authority found stretched credibility to suggest applicant acquiesced to changes without understanding implications or protesting - Authority did not accept respondent acted either unfairly or to applicant's disadvantage - No unjustified disadvantage - Applicant claimed respondent failed to refund him for expenses following - Authority found claim for unpaid expenses was recovery action and so no subject to 90 day time limit – Found respondent’s conclusion about expense claim reasonable on available evidence – Found applicant not entitled to reimbursement for use of own car - Authority found while events surrounding suspension from flying on medical grounds did cause applicant some stress did not accept stress attributable to respondent’s unjustified actions - Authority did not accept applicant's contention that way in which suspension handled was inappropriate or caused unnecessary stress - Found initial confusion about cause of sick leave was genuine mistake - Applicant claimed respondent failed to supply requested information - Authority found respondent went out of its way to ensure applicant given ample opportunity to communicate and no evidence failed to supply any information requested - Found respondent not obliged to accept request for particular employee not communicate with applicant - Found while applicant may have found content of communications stressful, respondent had responsibility to convey information to him - Applicant alleged disparity of treatment with another pilot who had been allowed to return to work after 14 months on sick leave - Respondent claimed pilot suffered physical illness, maintained full and open communication and medical condition was such that recovery could be reasonably accurately predicted - Authority found applicant’s case clearly distinguishable from other case and so no disparity of treatment - Authority found applicant’s illness not caused by respondent’s unjustifiable actions - Found applicant’s work situation and dealings with respondent no more stressful than those of other employees in similar positions - Found no evidence level of work related stress abnormal or that was causal link between that stress and applicant’s illness - Authority found respondent should, at very least, have attempted to discuss possibility of dismissal with applicant - Found given protracted timeframes involved since applicant's suspension, and enormity of consequences for applicant, would have been simple to advise dismissal a possibility and offer opportunity to make submissions, and engage representative - Found failure to offer applicant opportunity added to stress and constituted unjustifiable action - Omission not action of fair and reasonable employer - Disadvantage unjustified - Remedies - No contributory conduct - Applicant received sick leave and insurance payments prior to and subsequent to dismissal - Authority found applicant suffered no loss of income as result of dismissal - No reimbursement of lost wages awarded - Authority found award of $5,000 compensation appropriate - Found respondent’s actions, in not allowing applicant final opportunity to discuss possible dismissal added to applicant’ stress - Authority noted compensation was for additional stress and not for stress related to applicant’s other perceived grievances or as compensation for depressive illness - Manager |