| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant dismissed for possession of alcohol and being under influence of alcohol at workplace – Applicant claimed respondent did not carry out full and fair enquiry – Respondent claimed, following earlier incident, reminded applicant of company rules that consumption of alcohol or being under influence during work hours constituted serious misconduct and penalty could be instant dismissal – Respondent advised applicant investigating complaint applicant hung over, vomited in staff toilets and had alcohol at desk – Respondent requested applicant attend investigation meeting regarding allegation applicant hung over at work – Applicant admitted at meeting had alcohol on her desk – Applicant claimed had bought alcohol during lunch break and brought into workplace rather than leaving in car – Applicant claimed usual practice to clean teeth after morning tea and denied vomiting in toilets – Respondent noted staff testimonials said staff did not think applicant was hung over but claimed did not prove applicant not hung over – At applicant’s invitation, respondent went to applicant’s house and confirmed bottle of alcohol had not been half consumed – Respondent advised applicant had gone through all evidence and had spoken to staff member who had been told by another employee that employee had smelt alcohol in vicinity of applicant’s desk – Respondent read applicant analysis of evidence and decision that applicant’s employment terminated immediately – Applicant told respondent evidence did not cover everything – Applicant claimed stunned by respondent’s decision and respondent had made up mind before applicant provided explanation – Respondent claimed enquiry thorough, applicant had opportunity to state case and decision based on sound evidence – Authority found not made clear to applicant dismissal was possible outcome but, if applicant had been formally advised of possible outcomes, would still have been dismissed – Found applicant aware of rules, possible consequences if rules breached, advised of right to be represented and given opportunity to provide version of events – Found respondent failed to properly investigate applicant’s version of events or disclose all evidence to applicant before made decision – Found full and fair process would have included interviewing staff who supported applicant’s position and further meeting advising applicant of new evidence, and allowing applicant to respond, before decision made - Found respondent did not carry out full and fair enquiry – Found applicant bringing alcohol into workplace was serious misconduct but respondent did not properly consider applicant’s explanations for behaviour – Found fair and reasonable employer would have given formal, written final warning – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 25 percent contributory conduct – Applicant claimed dismissal process humiliating and frustrating, noted required to clean out desk and leave workplace in front of colleagues – Applicant claimed suffered stress and produced medical certificate - $3,000 compensation appropriate – Reimbursement of lost wages appropriate, less 25 percent deduction for contributory conduct and wages applicant received from new employer - Administrator |