| Summary |
INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant claimed dismissal for false serious misconduct allegations unjustified – Respondent claimed conclusion based on fair investigation – Applicant’s supervisor (“R”) alleged applicant used abusive language and intimidation when medical certificate requested – Applicant denied allegations and respondent advised if allegations proved, outcome could be dismissal – No witnesses supported applicant’s claim allegations false – Respondent’s investigation concluded dismissal for serious misconduct appropriate – Applicant’s union requested reversal of decision based on contradictory witness statements supporting allegation – Request declined - Applicant claimed arguable case on four heads – First, whether fair investigation conducted – Second, whether applicant had opportunity for explanation – Third, whether lesser penalty considered – Fourth, whether refusal to reverse decision reasonable – Authority found arguable whether dismissal reasonable when evidence supporting allegation contradictory – Applicant claimed balance of convenience in their favour because right to work not compensable – Respondent claimed not convenient to reinstate when possible applicant contributed to incident and damages adequate remedy – Found balance and overall justice favoured respondent - Found applicant’s case weak – Found possibility of contributory fault and hardship suffered by respondent outweigh reinstatement – Found respondent gave plausible reason for dismissal and decision to decline union’s request – Found minor flaws in process would not render otherwise justified dismissal unjustified – Reinstatement declined – Chicken Catcher |