| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant summarily dismissed following investigation into co-worker's (“X”) car being scratched in respondent’s secure staff car park - Respondent concluded applicant damaged car or was complicit in another employee damaging it, during investigation into incident applicant provided false information, and that applicant stuck tongue out at supervisor - Respondent concluded conduct amounted to serious misconduct causing loss of trust and confidence - X complained to respondent car had been scratched - Few days earlier applicant and X had verbal exchange resulting in applicant formally complaining about X’s behaviour - At beginning of shift when car scratched applicant’s son, who was also employee, had partly physical confrontation with X - Applicant argued X’s subsequent dismissal for serious misconduct relevant to determining her grievance claim - Authority found X’s subsequent dismissal not relevant - Found respondent had to exercise judgment about X’s honesty based on knowledge at time not what subsequently learned - Authority rejected applicant’s claim her inconsistent answers to questions about movements and activities were result of being questioned in unfair way designed to trap her - Found applicant’s answers inconsistent to such a degree respondent had reasonable grounds for concluding answers given deliberately false or misleading - Found respondent’s enquiry into allegations planned, efficient, thorough and carried out without undue haste - Found applicant given opportunity to comment on respondent’s conclusion had committed serious misconduct - Found respondent’s conclusions about where, when and who damaged X’s car reasonable based on evidence gathered - Found respondent’s actions those of fair and reasonable employer - Dismissal justified |