The Salvation Army Australia Southern Territory is facing a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) lodged by a very unhappy staffer (Sager).
April 27, 2016
Beaumont Care Pty Ltd has peeved off a staffer (Robertson) and a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) is the outcome.
April 27, 2016
The Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland has a s.372 (Application to deal with other contravention disputes) bubbling before Fair Work Commissioner Booth at the behest of a staff member (Sutherland).
April 27, 2016
Southern Cross Group Services has upset a staffer (Grobbelaar) and a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) is the consequence.
April 27, 2016
Claremont and South Port Aged Care Ltd is battling a s.372 (Application to deal with other contravention disputes) before Fair Work Commissioner Harper-Greenwell in Melbourne.
April 27, 2016
Calvary Health Care Adelaide Limited is facing a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) lodged by staffer Hansen.
April 27, 2016
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – social media – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – applicant was a frontline Centrelink officer – dismissed after over 21 years’ service for misconduct due to comments made from June 2012 to April 2015 on social media sites Whirlpool and Sportal – Commission noted assessment of whether valid reason for dismissal involved consideration of nature and gravity of conduct having regard to requirements of Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) and the Department’s policies – will not usually be a valid reason for dismissal for ‘out of hours’ conduct unless conduct falls within circumstances described in Rose v Telstra – however, scope of employer control over private conduct may be greater regarding public servants [McManus] – Commission proceeded on basis that if conduct a non-trivial breach of PS Act or any policy reasonably giving effect to it, then may constitute valid reason for dismissal – Commission found valid reasons for dismissal based on references to Department’s clients being ‘spastics and junkies’ among other terms; comments to effect that large proportion of Newstart exemptions sought on basis of depression not genuine and statements that Department’s processing times ‘utterly disgraceful’, such that applicant ’embarrassed to work there’ – Commission noted various mitigating factors favouring conclusion that dismissal harsh – dismissal disproportionate to gravity of misconduct, given conduct bore no relationship to actual work performance, caused no actual detriment to Department, was engaged in impulsively and comprised a small number of comments over period of years – the length and quality of applicant’s service and his recognition of his conduct’s unacceptability indicated that the conduct would not be repeated – many of the grounds relied upon for dismissal not justified – particularly harsh personal consequences of dismissal – Commission held dismissal harsh, despite valid reasons – applicant unfairly dismissed – reinstatement practicable and appropriate – appropriate to make an order maintaining continuity of employment and period of continuous service – no order for lost remuneration as conduct worthy of significant disciplinary response – financial loss suffered a suitable sanction for conduct. Starr v Department of Human Services
April 27, 2016
GENERAL PROTECTIONS – workplace rights – arbitration – ss.365, 369 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to deal with a general protections dismissal dispute by consent arbitration – applicant employed as Bequest Officer – applicant’s manager alleged he had engaged in inappropriate behaviour at a meeting with her in November 2014 – alleged intimidation – applicant issued with formal written warning in December 2014 – manager made further complaints about his conduct at meetings in December 2014 and January 2015 – in February 2015 respondent issued a ‘final warning’ regarding applicant’s conduct in workplace – applicant filed an ‘application for an order to stop bullying’ against respondent and manager in Commission – in April 2015 a consensus developed that applicant could not return to work reporting to the manager – applicant offered a temporary/trial role for six weeks at its State Support Office – temporary role extended by three weeks – in June 2015 respondent put three options to applicant in the event that the temporary role was not extended – further redeployment, retrenchment, or discussions ‘for a mutual separation arrangement’ – internal investigation into bullying claim by independent investigator not found proven – in August 2015 attempts to find a permanent position for applicant redeployment failed – applicant dismissed – applicant claimed respondent took adverse action in dismissing him – reasons given included his complaint of workplace harassment and bullying against his manager, and his application for an anti-bullying order to the Commission – Commission found applicant exercised a workplace right by commencing his anti-bullying application in the Commission and when he complained to respondent about the treatment he was experiencing from his manager – found decision to dismiss applicant was ‘adverse action’ within meaning of s.342(1) of FW Act – satisfied that because applicant could not perform the inherent requirements of his job, and after nearly six months of a search for an alternative position, the decision to dismiss the applicant was open to the respondent – adverse action not taken because of a prohibited reason, or reasons which included that reason – application dismissed. Lisha v St Vincent de Paul Society NSW
