| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant substantially removed from duties as truck driver to work in store – Respondent claimed no longer viable to engage applicant solely for delivery run and alternative work avoided redundancy - Applicant told supervisor work in produce cooler not good for health – Authority noted applicant failed to provide medical evidence – Respondent claimed when aware applicant unhappy, arranged school delivery runs – Respondent claimed did not organise further runs as performance issues better managed on site – Respondent claimed variation of duties consistent with applicant’s employment agreement – Applicant acknowledged agreement allowed for duty variation but claimed abilities were as driver not store person - Claimed unfair to expect Tongan employee used to warm climate to work in cooler – Authority found agreement gave respondent substantial entitlement to undertake any business duties provided applicant had, or capable of obtaining, necessary skills – Found appropriate for applicant to carry out work in store, particularly if avoided redundancy – Found insufficient evidence to suggest applicant not suitable person to carry out new duties – No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant left workplace during shift and failed to notify respondent – Respondent issued verbal warning – Applicant allegedly repeated behaviour – Respondent issued written warning informing applicant if improvements not made contract could be terminated - Respondent claimed company policy required employees notify immediate supervisor before leaving site – Investigation commenced – Applicant notified of meeting and opportunity to bring support person – Respondent claimed applicant failed to notify respondent leaving site or would be absent from work, did not wear uniform, drove dangerously in company vehicle and failed to obtain delivery signatures – Applicant claimed lost phone so could not inform respondent would not be at work, denied driving dangerously, unaware had to obtain signatures and did not respond to other allegations – Respondent sent applicant letter after meeting outlining allegations and informing applicant of opportunity to respond – Applicant claimed never received letter – Authority found more probable applicant did receive letter and aware of allegations – Respondent claimed applicant dismissed after second meeting as no trust and confidence in applicant – Applicant submitted dangerous driving allegation not properly investigated by employer – Respondent claimed complainant had provided sufficient details and applicant did not give alternative explanation – Authority found although prudent employer would obtain written complaint, reasonable for respondent to act on information without further investigation – Authority noted applicant’s further explanations about failure to obtain signature and not wearing uniform not given to respondent – Found dismissal action of fair and reasonable employer in all circumstances – Dismissal justified - Driver |