| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Respondent claimed applicant made unauthorised disclosures to media and failed to return training materials – Respondent dismissed applicant and paid wages in lieu of notice – Applicant admitted had some contact with media but claimed disclosure justified as form of “whistle blowing” – Applicant claimed advised by union to return training materials to union not respondent – Applicant began security training before dismissal – Applicant’s supervisor (“T”) sent email to applicant and other staff reminding them of training requirements and attached suggested answers and assessor guidebooks – Applicant claimed respondent promoted use of assessor guidebooks and told T unhappy about use of guidebooks – T claimed applicant pleased could refer to guidebook – Applicant kept materials and continued course – Applicant required to complete first aid training as part of course – Training manager (“D”) told applicant respondent would pay for first aid course but not day off work and applicant could choose to lose either day’s wages or take day off – Applicant’s employment agreement entitled applicant to be paid for attending first aid course – T in same office while applicant had conversation with D – T claimed applicant said if not paid to attend first aid course would make D “suffer” and that using guidebooks was cheating – D denied applicant said was concerned about use of guidebooks – Applicant told union about matter and union representative (“S”) arranged for applicant to speak to newspaper reporter about alleged cheating – Reporter contacted respondent’s general manager (“B”) – B claimed although reporter did not give complainant’s name said informant female and B knew applicant only woman staff member in training at time – Applicant confirmed with B had spoken to reporter – B organised meeting with applicant and S but claimed meeting only information gathering exercise – M and S claimed meeting disciplinary as B told applicant not to turn up for work next day – Authority found meeting not disciplinary as new matters required investigation - Applicant said at meeting because concerns about guidebooks not addressed approached union and media and on union’s advice gave guidebooks to union – Union undertook would return guidebooks and applicant assured respondent would not speak to media again without authorisation – Applicant claimed believed end of matter – B claimed meeting only start of resolving issue and reported matter to industry training organisation (“ITO”) – ITO undertook own investigation – Newspaper ran story two weeks later about alleged cheating quoting applicant and another newspaper ran story three days later that respondent told applicant to cheat otherwise would lose job – B organised disciplinary meeting with applicant - Found fair and reasonable for B to initiate formal disciplinary process - Union told respondent on applicant’s behalf would not attend as all matters dealt with – B sent applicant letter offering opportunity to respond to allegations had contacted media again, had not raised guidebook concerns with respondent and told T would “get D” – Applicant told B only used guidebooks as pressured to complete course, had raised concerns with D and had not made further statements to media – B told applicant had breached employment agreement’s confidentiality clause and gave applicant opportunity to submit why employment should continue – B confirmed dismissal as no evidence news article incorrectly dated, as claimed by applicant, and reporter refused to discuss story – Found reasonable for respondent to conclude was more likely than not applicant spoke with media after undertook would not do so and statements brought respondent into disrepute - ITO’s report described use of guidebooks as inappropriate, not cheating, and recommended improvements to respondent’s delivery of training – Found based on ITO’s report applicant’s comments to media inaccurate – Found applicant could have contacted ITO about guidebook concerns but not newspaper and not entitled to “whistleblower” protection – Found reasonable for B to conclude applicant had brought respondent into disrepute by making damaging unauthorised statements and dismiss applicant on notice – Found not necessary to address applicant’s alleged first disclosure to media but found overall respondent’s response to earlier comments fair and reasonable – Applicant participated in further filmed interview with media during notice period and appeared on television news criticising respondent – Union issued press release claiming respondent committed fraud and practices at taxpayer’s expense - Respondent told applicant further disclosure to media amounted to gross misconduct warranting instant dismissal – Found applicant’s comments after dismissal unauthorised, inaccurate and extremely damaging to respondent’s reputation – Found respondent’s decision to dismiss applicant without notice fair and reasonable – Dismissal justified - Security Guard |