| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant’s evidence preferred - Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified as serious misconduct and poor performance allegations pretext to punish applicant for requesting leave – Respondent argued allegations true therefore dismissal justified – Applicant requested leave for surgery – Respondent advised applicant would “suffer the consequences” if went on leave – Altercation occurred regarding whether leave necessary – Respondent declined to formally respond to leave request – Respondent advised applicant of serious misconduct allegations – Respondent stated allegations would be dropped if applicant postponed surgery – Respondent called applicant’s surgeon to postpone operation without applicant’s authorisation – Respondent advised applicant’s productivity would determine whether leave would be granted – Applicant subsequently informed respondent could not postpone surgery anymore – Disciplinary meeting held – Respondent alleged applicant falsified accident report, put clients at risk by laying excess gel, and gross negligence for non-servicing of major client – Applicant explained mis-description honest mistake – Applicant accepted applied excessive gel, however, was genuine error – Applicant explained non-service of client due to genuine misunderstanding between parties – Respondent concluded explanation inadequate and applicant dismissed for serious misconduct – Authority found applicant’s leave request motivated dismissal – Found respondent’s conduct antithesis of employer’s duty to act in good faith – Found insufficient evidence to support respondent’s allegations – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Found no contributory conduct as misconduct and poor performance allegations not dealt with using proper procedures – Reimbursement of 4 ï¾½ weeks lost wages – Found $10,000 compensation appropriate as applicant treated appallingly, suffered great humiliation and distress, and felt threatened by respondent – Pest Control Worker |