| Summary |
INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant suspended then summarily dismissed for serious misconduct for removing load of wood, which had not paid for, from workplace in breach of respondent’s policy – Authority found applicant had arguable case – Found basis of dismissal relied on contested conversation between applicant and member of respondent’s management (“B”) – Found easily cleared low threshold for arguable case when B’s affidavit evidence untested – Authority also accepted respondent seemed to have targeted applicant – Found in circumstances where behaviour tolerated by previous owners, may have been greater onus on respondent to change longstanding behaviours – Found balance of convenience favoured applicant - Respondent argued following dismissal, subsequent misconduct discovered with allegations of sexual harassment and of stealing second load of wood – Applicant argued financially vulnerable and needed to provide for wife – Authority doubted efficacy of damages as alternative to interim reinstatement for applicant – Found overall justice of case favoured applicant - Found interim reinstatement would give applicant opportunity to refute allegations - Found none of co-workers alleging sexual harassment stated could not work with applicant – However, found garden leave appropriate – Interim reinstatement ordered – Production manager |