TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant’s employment terminated due to serious misconduct – respondent raised four allegations against applicant – allegation one and two related to sale and discounting of shoes – allegation three related to breach of layby policy – allegation four related to falsification of time keeping records – applicant asserted dismissal was unreasonable because he was given insufficient notification of the allegations and lured into a meeting by deliberate deceit on the part of his managers – further asserted dismissal was unjust because evidence did not support finding that the applicant had engaged in deliberate criminality, but rather he had failed to process funds in a manner which represented an aberration – respondent asserted applicant was given details of allegations and was provided with full opportunity to respond both at the meeting of 21 September, and a further meeting held on 9 October 2015 – respondent further asserted applicant’s conduct constituted serious misconduct – Commission found only one of respondent’s allegations of serious misconduct could be sustained – employer’s finding of serious misconduct in respect to the allegation regarding applicant failing to properly record and receipt the cash provided in respect to the purchase of the New Balance shoes established valid reason for the dismissal of the applicant – however the manifestly erroneous approach adopted by the employer when dealing with what has subsequently been established to be both serious misconduct and significantly less serious misdemeanours meant that there was no proper basis on which to summarily dismiss the applicant – dismissal found to be unreasonable and unjust – compensation issued. Jimenez v Accent Group t/a Platypus Shoes (Australia) P/L
…
