| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed suffered number of unjustified disadvantages relating to ankle injury received when had to move quickly to avoid car driven by angry motorist had just issued ticket to – Applicant issued with medical certificate restricting him to sedentary or light duties – Applicant undertook light duties but respondent found it increasingly difficult to provide suitable duties - Applicant claimed suffered disadvantage when not provided with further light duties - Authority found respondent made extensive efforts to provide applicant with light duties – Found applicant’s work capacity prevented respondent from assigning him some forms of lighter duties and applicant lacked necessary computer and keyboard skills for other light duties – Found no unjustified disadvantage - Respondent directed applicant’s doctor declare applicant unfit for work - Respondent accepted request poorly worded and should have asked for reassessment of applicant’s injury - Authority satisfied intention of request, and need for it, open to fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances at time – Found applicant’s employment agreement allowed respondent to direct him to attend, at its expense, medical examination by registered medical practitioner to assess fitness and safety for work after period of absence due to injury or illness – No unjustified disadvantage - Applicant claimed suffered disadvantage because of way respondent dealt with arrangements for return to work – Authority found nothing in respondent’s actions caused applicant disadvantage, whether unjustified or not - Applicant’s supervisor (“T”) asked applicant to provide information about gaps in time logs identified by random audit – Applicant believed being accused of stealing time and request was part of campaign of harassment against him and so initially refused to provide information – Respondent concerned applicant’s communication style inappropriate and aggressive, especially as had been cautioned about appropriate communication style before – Applicant called to disciplinary meeting and issued with formal written warning - Applicant claimed warning caused unjustified disadvantage - Authority satisfied warning was action fair and reasonable employer would have taken in all circumstances at time – Found applicant had adequate notice of disciplinary meeting, opportunity to seek representation, and able to make submissions on allegations which were considered before disciplinary sanction decided and imposed – Found applicant had failed to follow lawful and reasonable instruction and to meet good faith obligations to be responsive and communicative - Warning justified - No unjustified disadvantage - Applicant claimed suffered unjustified disadvantage as result of T’s failure to inform him of unexpected death of co-worker when arrived at work in morning and by criticising applicant in email by using Christian biblical reference T should have known would be offensive to applicant whom knew to be Jewish – Authority accepted T’s evidence did not intentionally omit to tell applicant – Found no evidence of disadvantage suffered by finding out about death later in afternoon – No unjustified disadvantage – Authority accepted T’s evidence reference not intended to have religious significance, rather used as aphorism - Authority found while comments that were, subjectively, offensive to Jewish person could conceivably come within scope of prohibited grounds of discrimination, actual content of T’s comments lacked any statement of religious or ethical belief which could reasonably be found to amount to disadvantage to applicant, or if so, was unjustified – No unjustified disadvantage – Applicant’s personal grievance claims dismissed - Parking Officer |