| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed verbally abused and humiliated by manager (“C”) in front of client’s employees – While applicant working at client’s premises, C approached applicant to discuss work issues – Applicant and C gave different accounts of what occurred – C argued applicant, not C, was aggressor – Applicant reported incident to regional manager (“F”) - F claimed said would investigate and sent applicant to work at different site – Applicant claimed understood F would talk to C and applicant did not have to work for rest of day – F’s evidence preferred – Authority accepted F’s evidence F tried to contact applicant but applicant had not kept contact record up to date – Applicant’s union adviser (“K”) raised disadvantage grievance – F, K and applicant agreed to meet and undergo mediation – F sought further details of incident – Union filed statement of problem in Authority – Respondent argued was attempting to investigate matter – Authority found respondent never determined different versions of incident – Found not reasonable union demanded remedies where respondent yet to make findings – Found K knew at least respondent wanted more information from applicant – Found situation did not give rise to personal grievance – Found because applicant had contacted union, arranged meeting parties to attend mediation and matter lodged in Authority, was not fatal that F did not provide applicant with C’s version of events, get back to applicant, nor that investigation stalled – Found respondent waiting on details from union when matter lodged – Authority found applicant not proven was humiliated and shamed by unjustifiable action of C, although they were involved in verbal altercation – No unjustified disadvantage - Cleaner |