| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant dismissed after conviction for drink driving offence - Applicant driving company vehicle when offence committed - Reasons for dismissal were conviction was applicant’s third for same offence, respondent not prepared to support application for limited licence again, and applicant not permitted to work at alternative location - Length of service 22 years - Applicant claimed led to believe employment would be on going and therefore lulled into false sense of security about outcome of disciplinary process - Authority found despite unacceptable delay in holding disciplinary meeting, applicant knew conviction considered serious misconduct and dismissal was possible outcome - Based on evidence Authority did not accept applicant’s argument that did not have full and fair opportunity to explain position at disciplinary meeting - Applicant considered decision to dismiss made by head office and not Customer Care Manager (“A”) who actually dismissed applicant, meaning applicant not given opportunity to be heard by decision-maker - Authority accepted A’s evidence that liaised with human resources at head office and Chief Executive (“CE”) required to authorise or approve dismissal, but ultimate decision A’s - Found need for CE’s authorisation or approval did not make CE ultimate decision-maker - Applicant alleged A predetermined dismissal because A had pre-authorised approval for dismissal from head office - Authority accepted A’s evidence that open to convincing explanation from applicant - Authority concluded while ideal process not followed, not so unfair as to make dismissal unjustified - Applicant submitted never given formal warnings, and even if had, would have expired - Also submitted dismissal not necessary given applicant’s length of service and good performance - Authority accepted applicant never subject to formal warnings, and that any warnings would have expired - However, applicant knew driving company car with excess breath alcohol level constituted serious misconduct under employment agreement and no warning was necessary - Authority found fair and reasonable employer would conclude summary dismissal appropriate sanction - Given any procedural defects were minor respondent acted as fair and reasonable employer - Application dismissed - Customer Care Officer |