| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant called to meeting with respondent’s General Manager (“C”) and respondent’s Customer Service Team Leader - Applicant shown small tin and its contents and asked if knew what it was - Authority found applicant acknowledged tin contained small packet of marijuana and pipe for smoking - Applicant explained marijuana belonged to her boyfriend and confirmed she had brought tin to work - C told applicant bringing drug to work strictly against respondent’s zero tolerance drug policy and that under employment agreement and employee conduct manual, possession of marijuana constituted ground for instant dismissal - Applicant suspended - Authority accepted applicant was asked more than once during meeting if had understood what C said and applicant confirmed she had - Following day applicant received letter from C advising dismissed for serious misconduct - Letter advised dismissal was for applicant’s admission had both marijuana and means of smoking it at work - Authority found that from respondent’s investigation C had clear evidence applicant had in possession at workplace substance she thought was marijuana, and pipe for smoking it - Respondent’s code of conduct provided possession of illicit drugs on work premises during working hours was serious misconduct for which employee could be immediately dismissed - Found even without knowledge of respondent’s rules, applicant knew possession of marijuana was criminal offence, and if had not known, knowledge deemed - Applicant confirmed to Authority knew possession of drug was offence - Authority found although respondent’s investigation brief, no lack of fairness - Time taken all that was necessary as issue straightforward and applicant readily cooperated - Dismissal justified - Shortly after dismissal applicant believed from what boyfriend told her that substance belonging to him was not marijuana but a lawful substance - Authority found discovery did not assist applicant, as employer’s justification under s103A ERA test depended on knowledge at time of dismissal - At time substance in tin with pipe appeared to be marijuana and applicant confirmed believed it to be marijuana - Closer analysis of substance by respondent before concluding disciplinary investigation not required in circumstances - COSTS - Respondent confirmed no issue of costs arose - Customer Services Representative |