| Summary |
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant sought non-publication order for evidence relating to applicant’s health – Authority declined order as necessary to discuss alleged harm to health to resolve employment relationship problem – Order declined - BREACH OF CONTRACT – HEALTH AND SAFETY – Applicant claimed respondent failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard applicant’s health – Respondent argued no breach of duty and reasonable steps taken to ensure safe workplace – Applicant required to give advice to Select Committee on Bill – Applicant required to travel out of city - Government changes to policy increased applicant’s workload - Applicant developed workplace stress – Applicant advised respondent’s manager (“B”) suffered from stress – Requested respondent fund counselling sessions – B approved request and increased staff to assist applicant – Respondent required employees working on Bill to accurately record hours of work due to increased workload – Applicant sought further medical advice and took sick leave – Applicant claimed respondent took deliberate and calculated risk with applicant’s health by not requiring applicant to have medical examination – Authority found respondent not taking inappropriate risk by not requesting medical examination – Found respondent increased staff due to workload – Found respondent audited employees’ work hours consistent with health and safety policies – Found applicant’s averaged hours decreased and less than other employees working on Bill – Found respondent made arrangements to reduce travelling – Found applicant given two weeks annual leave – Found respondent took significant and reasonable steps to manage applicant’s stress – Applicant claimed reasonably foreseeable stress would cause applicant harm – Respondent argued depression not foreseeable as had reasonable belief applicant coping with stress due to measures implemented – Found applicant made only minimal references to stress – Found neither references indicated applicant not coping or health under threat – Found depression not reasonably foreseeable – Applicant claimed irrespective of specific actions taken to assist applicant, respondent systematically failed to implement plan for identification and management of stress – Found although respondent could not produce plan, applicant not established systematic failure of type alleged - No breach of contract – No breach of duty - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed written warning unjustified as had reasonable basis for refusing to continue role on Bill – Respondent argued applicant’s conduct undermined political neutrality of public service constituting serious misconduct – Applicant advised B could not continue role as did not support change in government policy – Applicant declined to follow lawful and reasonable instructions for work relating to Bill – B raised concerns over applicant’s conduct during performance review meeting – Parties agreed matter serious and needed addressing – Respondent’s general manager (“J”) held disciplinary meeting – Applicant explained continuing role would jeopardise professional integrity – J advised public servant’s role to implement Government decision – J concluded, after applicant did not resile from position, written warning for serious misconduct warranted – Applicant appealed decision to Chief Executive (“X”) – X concluded warning stands – Authority found respondent took unreasonably long time to instigate disciplinary action – Found although applicant actively justified conduct, applicant not given full opportunity to resile from position – Found however, respondent’s failure not breach of good faith but failure of good practice – Found warning substantively justified as applicant’s actions jeopardised public service neutrality – Found respondent took applicant’s health issues into account and appropriate weight given – Found warning procedurally justified – Found no material disadvantage suffered – No disadvantage – ARREARS OF WAGES – Applicant sought arrears of wages claiming entitlement to Long Service Leave – Respondent argued Leave to reward employees continuing employment with extra beak, not paid out upon termination of employment relationship - Authority found no basis to treat Long Service Leave as entitlement to arrears of wages – Application declined – Principal Policy Advisor/Public Servant |