| Too
close to the bone
An abattoir employee was dismissed
for tampering with time sheet records and advising
other employees to falsify records. The employee claimed
unfair dismissal, saying that he wasn't given details
of the allegations against him. Whilst the fraud itself
wasn't challenged, the court ruled that the company
was too vague in the reasons gave for his dismissal
and they may not have been understood by the employee
who was "unversed in the law". The court
ordered the company to pay the maximum penalty, six
months pay to the employee as compensation, plus all
legal costs.
|
Off
the rails
A train driver was involved in a fatal accident. He
underwent a series of drug and alcohol tests, which
tested positive. When asked, he admitted to smoking
marijuana a few days before the accident. He was dismissed
on the basis of the company's drug and alcohol policy.
It said that a worker who tested positive would be deemed
'impaired' and liable for dismissal. The policy was
ten pages long and was posted up on notice boards. It
wasn't given to each worker.
The court said that there was no evidence that employees
actually knew understood or appreciated the company
policy on drugs. The worker was reinstated and received
$15,000 compensation.
|
| Disability,
not poor performance
A trainee store worker was dismissed
after 7 weeks because he kept making mistakes with
the numbering system in a warehouse. But most numbers
looked the same to him because he suffered from a
form of dyslexia. He did not mention the problem on
his CV, job application or training questionnaire.
The Commission found that the numbers
problem amounted to a disability. The employer had:
 Failed to recognise the true cause of the problem
Treated
him less favourably than other employees because it
did not bring in a training adviser
Dismissed him because of his disability
The non-disclosure by the employee
was discounted because:
He was advised by his job agency to keep it quiet
He
believed he could do the job
The training questionnaire was poorly worded, allowing
him to avoid the issue without deliberately misleading
the employer.
The employer had to pay him $10,000
damages on top of lost earnings and legal costs.
|
No farewell without notice
A senior manager claimed damages after being dismissed
for major cost over-runs on a construction project.
While the court agreed that the employer was entitled
to end the contract, proper notice had to be given.
The company said that the employee did not give truthful
information to senior management and concealed information
when reporting.
The court found that whilst the employee was clearly
derelict in his duties, he did not breach his contract
''knowingly, willfully and with any intention to deceive
or mislead his superiors''. As a result the court said
he was entitled to damages for the lack of notice. The
employer had to pay $157,000 plus costs. |
| Mixed Signals
Earlier this year an employee whom
fellow workers treated as a "scab" was awarded
damages of over $600,000. Yet in another decision,
it was ruled that calling a fellow employee a "scab"
is no big deal, particularly if the employee is a
manager, and that it is not grounds for dismissal.
After returning to work after a dispute,
an employee called his manager a "scab"
on numerous occasions and also made derogatory remarks
about the manager's ethnic background. The company
gave him a formal warning. The harassment continued
and the manager complained again. At a second meeting
the employee was given a chance to respond and was
dismissed for misconduct.
The company had to reinstate
him when the Commission said that the manager was
"unreasonably sensitive" and that in the
eyes of the employee "the manager WAS a scab".
The employer had failed to adequately inform the employee
that repeated use of the word would lead to dismissal,
and had only given him a limited right to respond.
|
| Employee
not responsible for what he signs
An employee worked for three days before
being dismissed for misrepresenting his experience
and ability. The employee had signed a letter of appointment
which stated, on the first page, that the job was
subject to 3 months probation. However, the employer
did not spell this out in his oral job offer via the
telephone. Consequently the Commission ruled that
the job offer did not depend on a successful probationary
period, and is now hearing the employee's claim for
reinstatement or compensation. |
back
|
|