TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – applicant had a number of periods of full-time employment with respondent in recent years most recently from 22 December 2016 – employed by respondent as a Cultural Heritage Officer (CHO) to perform CHO functions on land operated by Sandlewood’s client, QGC P/L (QGC), but traditionally owned by BCJWY traditional owner group – applicant a member of the Aboriginal Western Wakka Wakka group one of the five groups in BCJWY traditional owner group – QGC informed respondent they no longer required applicant’s services due to alleged breach of confidential information and ethical conduct policies – applicant submitted he could not do cultural heritage work on another native title holder’s land but could have done administration work in respondent’s offices – respondent submitted applicant could not be redeployed because respondent wasn’t working on any other Western Wakka Wakka land and there was no other work available for him – whether valid reason – Kool v Adecco and Tasports v Gee cited – if an employer can no longer pace its employee in the premises of a client it should exhaust all avenues to source other roles for the employee – Commission noted QGC’s alarmist approach to applicant’s actions and extraordinary conduct from their Senior Cultural Heritage Advisor in dealing with traditional owners – satisfied that respondent attempted to salvage applicant’s placement at QGC – satisfied was a valid reason for ending applicant’s employment at QGC as a CHO – not satisfied was a valid reason for dismissal from employment with respondent – found respondent failed to hold further discussions and failed to consult on other opportunities to continue employment – dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable – Commission ordered compensation of $2,400 less tax, plus superannuation at 9.5% of $2,400. Conlon v Sandlewood Aboriginal Projects Limited
