| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicants confidential union members as concerned would be discriminated against on grounds of union membership if respondent knew - Respondent signalled intention to commence restructuring process which potentially affected applicants – Union organiser wrote to respondent indicating applicants’ union members and would be acting for them during consultation process - Meanwhile applicants and another employee (“G”) observed drinking alcohol during work hours by respondent’s general manager – Applicants sent disciplinary letter stating incident would be discussed as well as restructuring process at a meeting – Following meeting and respondent’s further investigations applicants dismissed for serious misconduct - Applicants claimed disciplinary issue only activated after respondent became aware applicants union members and that dismissal for misconduct effected to ensure respondent did not have to meet redundancy obligations - Authority found respondent only became aware applicants’ union members at same time as began investigation into applicants’ conduct – Found respondent did not consider union membership when sent disciplinary letters - Found had respondent considered it would have sent disciplinary letters to union as applicants’ agent rather than applicants personally - Found G not union member and dealt with in same way as applicants - Found applicants’ employment agreements did not provide for redundancy compensation - Authority found no evidence applicant’s penalised for union membership - Applicants’ claimed drinking at end of shift common practice in workplace - Authority found had been common practice of drinking alcohol in workplace at end of shift – However, found respondent had issued new policy that alcohol to be consumed only afterhours in staff lunchroom several months prior to incident – Found after policy instituted no widespread culture of alcohol consumption in workplace – Found applicants and G appeared to be only staff who continued drinking during work time - Found G had admitted to drinking alcohol, knowing it was wrong, and only drank at time did because management not present on site - Applicants’ claim respondent failed to adequately implement alcohol policy rejected - Found policy clearly enunciated, accepted, and implemented by vast majority of employees – Found respondent had determined applicants breached policy – Found respondent genuinely concerned about operation of machinery under influence of alcohol – Found available for respondent to conclude any alcohol consumption likely to cause impairment at work - Found fair and reasonable employer, having conducted proper investigation, would have been justified in dismissing applicants - Dismissals justified - Printer |