TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant employed for 17 years as a foreman – made threat to harm another employee – incident occurred four days after performance discussion at which applicant was told violence or threats of violence were not tolerated or consistent with supervisory position – applicant received previous warning in 2014 that further violence would result in dismissal – Commission noted that duration of effectiveness of warning is affected by seriousness of behaviour and nature of warning given – to be valid, reason for dismissal must be sound, defensible and well-founded [Selvachandran] – threatening physical harm against another employee was valid reason – applicant’s behaviour was inconsistent with obligations as employee and as supervisor – Commission took into account warnings of 2014 and fact that performance discussion made it clear threats of violence were as inappropriate as violence itself – although ‘robust’ language was commonplace in work environment, dismissal was not due to use of foul language and workplace did not accept violence or threats of violence – found dismissal not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – dismissal based on appropriate assessment of circumstances, not inferences – dismissal not unfair – application dismissed. Maile v Inception WA P/L atf the Araminta Trust t/a Jackson Asphalt
…
