| Summary |
INJUNCTION - Application for interim reinstatement - Applicant claimed dismissal for serious misconduct unjustified and sought interim reinstatement - Applicant previously issued with two warnings for unsafe driving - Team meeting held where all staff informed of need to treat and speak to clients with respect and that zero tolerance to any form of intimidation, hitting, slapping, pushing, kicking or using unapproved restraint - Incident occurred where applicant put hands on client’s shoulders in what was described as a push - Dispute between parties as to nature of incident - Respondent undertook investigation and meetings held – Applicant represented by union delegate and given opportunity to comment - Respondent concluded applicant’s actions serious misconduct and dismissed applicant - Post dismissal applicant threw eggs at managers’ and co-worker’s houses - Authority found was arguable case whether applicant’s actions constituted serious misconduct - Applicant raised at least eight procedural issues that claimed made dismissal unjustifiable - Found criticisms likely to be investigated but applicant could have difficulty proving were more than technical breaches - Authority found damages suitable alternative remedy - Authority found balance of convenience very finely balanced - Respondent raised issues about practicality of reinstatement - Claimed if applicant reinstated would need supervision which would have financial impact - Respondent expressed concern about applicant’s history in employment and applicant’s attitude and commitment to values of community services worker role - However, found applicant’s loss of job, dire financial circumstances and potential impact of dismissal on career given respondent biggest service provider in applicant’s city meant balance of convenience favoured him - Found overall justice favoured respondent - Found substantive investigation meeting in five weeks time - Found evidence of applicant pushing service user and respondent’s policies meant did not have strongly arguable case to warrant granting permanent reinstatement at substantive investigation - Found respondent had strong arguments against applicant’s claims of procedural flaws - Application for interim reinstatement dismissed - Community Services Worker |