| Summary |
INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement - Short-term employment – Applicant lived and worked on farm – Shared accommodation with two co-workers and their family – Physical altercation between applicant and co-workers – Another co-worker (“M”) intervened to end fight – Disparity in evidence between applicant and co-workers as to aggressor – Authority preferred M’s evidence that applicant angry about shared living arrangements, threw punch at one co-worker and pushed other – At disciplinary meeting applicant gave account of events and admitted punching co-worker but refused to accept fault – Respondent interviewed co-workers and M – Applicant dismissed - Applicant argued disciplinary meeting process flawed as no notice of agenda, no opportunity to prepare, not represented and respondent did not listen to applicant’s argument of self-defence – Authority found applicant had arguable case, as dependant on outcome of evidentiary disputes – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that respondent responsible for conflict as provided inappropriate living arrangements, because not justification for violence or assault – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that dismissal not warranted because misconduct occurred outside of work hours – Applicant argued employment agreement did not provide right to terminate agreement prior to expiry date – Authority found right for employer to terminate employment for serious misconduct could be implied into contract, and regardless appropriate remedy more likely damages not reinstatement – Overall, applicant had arguable case about quality of employer’s investigation and correctness of conclusion about need for applicant to defend self – Authority found insufficient evidence to support applicant’s argument that had no other income, no place to live and may lose personal belongings – Replacement already started work – Applicant to bear consequences of delayed application to Authority – Co-workers concerned for safety if applicant reinstated - Authority found balance of convenience favoured respondent – Regarding overall justice of case, Authority noted applicant did not have strongly arguable case on current evidence – If Authority found in substantive investigation that applicant not defending self when punched and pushed co-workers, applicant would have contributed significantly to situation giving rise to grievance, which would count against reinstatement – Authority rejected argument that applicant would still be employed but for poor process – Application for interim reinstatement declined – Mediation suggested – Farm manager |