TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – applicant employed in Mobile Maintenance Department at Coppabella Mine – applicant dismissed as result of applicant losing control of a light vehicle in a ‘no go zone’ – breach of Cardinal Rule 3 (Rule 3) – applicant conceded he was in alleged ‘no go zone’ but refuted allegation area was a ‘no go zone’ according to respondent’s policy – claimed no valid reason for termination – respondent did not articulate what policy was breached – restricted area was not signed and work in the area lead reasonable person to believe the area was no longer restricted – respondent did not substantiate how the applicant failed to drive to conditions – submitted prior warnings taken into account by respondent in deciding to terminate his employment should not have carried any weight – respondent submitted termination not harsh, unjust or unreasonable as there was valid reason for termination being the serious breach of safety procedures – safety breach constituted valid reason for termination – claimed applicant had poor record of compliance with safety procedures, evidenced by three final written warnings – claimed applicant was notified mine pit a restricted area which was signed accordingly but applicant entered without authorisation and lost control of vehicle, causing serious damage – claimed it had discharged its onus to establish the misconduct occurred as alleged – whether dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable – Commission satisfied applicant was notified of reasons for dismissal and given opportunity to appropriately respond – respondent conceded allegation initially put to applicant was that he breached Rule 3 by entering a ‘no go zone’ but reconciled allegation to a ‘restricted access area’ and therefore applicant was not in breach of Rule 3 – Commission found this a procedural flaw – found issues arising from applicant’s ability to properly respond and consider reasons provided for termination did not constitute fatal procedural flaws – found conduct of applicant substantiated as valid reason for dismissal – dismissal not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – application dismissed. Hill v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management P/L
…
