| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent in disciplinary process – Applicant claimed employment agreement (“EA”) lacked provision for disciplinary procedures – Claimed disciplinary process and investigation carried out in over zealous and intimidatory manner – Applicant sought payment of all holiday pay prior to annual leave – Prior to annual leave applicant put bike which was respondent’s stock and property on hold – Subsequently applicant obtained authorisation for refund of bike purchase as mix up over holiday pay – However, applicant stated still wanted to buy bike – Subsequently respondent discovered applicant’s father (“F”) had collected bike – Authority found applicant told respondent investigating removal of bike without permission or payment, not that being accused of theft – Applicant argued F had picked up and paid for bike – Applicant refused to provide F’s contact details to respondent – Applicant telephoned respondent and made payment as said was a mix up – Applicant called to meeting where explanation sought – Respondent determined applicant unknowingly or knowingly allowed company property to be removed without payment – Respondent confirmed applicant in breach of responsibilities as store manager – Applicant claimed disadvantaged as result of investigation may not get promotion as record tainted – Authority found applicant had obligation of good faith to be communicative with employer – Authority rejected applicant’s argument that EA prevented respondent carrying out investigation – Found carrying out of disciplinary process for employer not outside agency – Found witness interviews carried out discreetly – Found assertion that chance of promotion were damages not shown on evidence – Found disciplinary meeting not carried out in intimidatory, bullying, or harassing manner – Found suspension technically unlawful, however, not entitled to remedies because of contribution – Store Manager |