| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Serious misconduct – Respondent’s evidence preferred - Applicant claimed dismissal unjustified – Claimed disadvantaged as respondent breached implied duty to provide safe workplace – Respondent argued dismissal justified and no breach of duty – Applicant received first written warning for misconduct – Upon receiving warning, applicant became abusive and threatening towards respondent – Respondent subsequently alleged applicant allowed unauthorised persons to use staff discount cards in breach of rules – Applicant received form explaining allegations, possible outcome, and entitlement to representation – Disciplinary meeting held – Respondent concluded explanation inadequate - Concluded dismissal for serious misconduct warranted – Respondent erroneously drafted letter outlining right of appeal within five days when policy provided 30 days – Applicant made no appeal – Personal grievance raised – Applicant claimed respondent became abusive after first warning issued and made Police complaint – Authority found complaint made 19 weeks after alleged incident occurred – Found Police did not investigate as alleged assault minor and respondent “categorically denied” allegation – Found complaint imprudent attempt to give support to an unsupportable claim – Applicant claimed disadvantaged as disciplinary proceedings unfair – Found respondent provided applicant sufficient information relating to allegations before disciplinary meeting – Found respondent’s erroneous letter caused applicant to believe right of appeal expired when letter received – Found however, applicant not prejudiced as would not have advanced any tangible matters if appealed – No disadvantage – Applicant claimed dismissal substantively unjustified as did not interview nominated witnesses – Found even if witnesses interviewed, would not mitigate against dismissal as rules clearly provided not to let unauthorised persons use staff discount cards – Found applicant knew conduct rules and respondent’s expectations – Found respondent made clear misuse of card constituted serious misconduct – Dismissal justified – Sales Person |