| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed respondent failed to fully and fairly investigate reckless driving allegation therefore dismissal unjustified – Respondent argued sufficient evidence to conclude serious misconduct warranting dismissal – Applicant involved in car accident with member of public (“X”) – Applicant reported accident to respondent – Respondent advised applicant witness (“J”) complained about applicant’s driving before incident occurred – Applicant stated in accident report X said “sorry I was going too fast” – Respondent held investigation and interviewed X and J - Respondent’s investigation concluded X “does not recall making any statements” – Disciplinary meeting held – Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct – Applicant claimed first, insufficient eye witnesses to accident – Second, no findings of credibility between applicant and X’s evidence – Third, conflict of evidence required respondent to enquire further before reaching decision – Fourth, previous verbal warning relating to different matter should not have been considered – Fifth, specific details of allegation not put to applicant – Sixth, no complaint made to police – Respondent argued entitled to rely on X and J’s evidence, own investigation report, and fact accident occurred – Authority found negligent or reckless driving serious allegation and respondent had responsibility to produce compelling evidence – Found fair and reasonable employer would have investigated further due to conflicting evidence – Found respondent failed to investigate whether X in fact stated “sorry I was going too fast” – Found applicant employed at respondent 7 years and blemish free driving record – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Applicant claimed reinstatement appropriate – Respondent argued under redundancy process and other employees had now complained about applicant’s driving – Authority found redundancy process did not defeat reinstatement – Found claim other employees complained about applicant’s driving lacked substance and should have been raised with applicant - Found no contributory conduct as no conclusion who caused accident and applicant cooperated with investigation – Reimbursement of $10,086 lost wages appropriate – $8,000 compensation appropriate – Mechanical engineer |