TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant applied for unfair dismissal remedy after being terminated by respondent on 7 April 2017 – basis for termination was serious and wilful misconduct – applicant was a director of the respondent since 16 February 1987 – applicant claimed he had not seen any official profit and loss statements or balance sheets for over 10 years – applicant claimed he was told that the respondent had made a loss on the books over the last two financial years – in October 2016 the applicant and the managing director of the respondent had an argument about a business issue – respondent submitted that the applicant directed obscene language to employees and made threats of physical violence – applicant submitted that he asked the managing director if he could see the company accounts and said if he did not get them he would get a lawyer involved – the applicant met with the respondent’s accountant on 22 March 2017 – shown a spreadsheet which disclosed losses in the last two financial years – the accountant did not provide the applicant with copies of any documents – applicant submitted he was then told by the managing director to resign as the respondent’s financial losses were his fault – on 7 April 2017 an altercation took place involving the applicant and the managing director – the Commission considered the respondent’s reasons for the applicant’s dismissal – found there was no reason why the applicant was not entitled to ask his solicitor to examine the company’s records – the applicant was rude and abusive and used derogatory and racist language towards the respondent’s staff – the applicant’s actions in calling the police on 6 April 2017 was not a valid ground for the applicant’s dismissal – Commission satisfied that on 7 April 2017 the applicant threatened to physically assault the managing director of the respondent – conduct found to be a valid reason for dismissal – found applicant’s dismissal was neither harsh, unjust or unreasonable – application dismissed. Essey v Rafic P/L t/a All-Fect Distributors
…
