| Summary |
DISPUTE – Whether respondent entitled to require applicant to work on days other than Saturdays – Authority found position description incorporated into employment agreement (“EA”) and stated applicant employed permanent part time Saturdays – Found flexibility of position clause expressly allowed for changes of hours, but “hours” did not include “days” – Found flexibility clause allowed for change in position description, if employee consulted and roster clause in EA also potentially allowed for changes – However, found argument failed as applicant specifically employed by mutual agreement to work on Saturdays only, and had only worked Saturdays – Found reference to Saturdays in position description was clearly expressed record of underlying assumption of parties at time entered EA – Found variation of implied term required agreement – Also found to allow change of day of week applicant worked would be inconsistent with terms of EA as to how employment may be terminated, where de facto effect would have been ending employment due to other employment commitments – Found respondent not entitled to change day of work without applicant’s agreement – Noted applicant at risk of redundancy – Authority found respondent acted as fair and reasonable employer in process of seeking change – Found respondent open, responsive and communicative about applicant’s concerns, including meeting with applicant and union - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed after made number of complaints about misconduct by co-workers, was bullied by staff and managers – Respondent considered matters resolved and applicant satisfied with outcome – Authority found respondent extensively canvassed concerns and offered EAP – Found received, considered and acted on complaints as fair and reasonable employer – No unjustified disadvantage – Applicant entitled to recovery of filing fee as partially successful and represented self - Support officer |