TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – applicant dismissed after pre-start meetings held on 28 and 29 January 2017 – Commission found valid reason for dismissal – respondent employer alleged applicant failed to comply with express direction given to him to discuss requirements of Charter and Code with crew of employees he supervised – applicant allowed an employee to address crew at pre-start meeting about an incident in which one employee in crew had allegedly ‘dobbed in’ another employee for sleeping on job at 9am in the morning – applicant failed to properly address conduct of employee at meeting – applicant spoke to the employee who had allegedly ‘dobbed in’ another employee and in doing so breached charter and code – Commission accepted evidence of applicant that did not breach obligations under Code or Charter by making statements that crew members should ‘come to [him] personally’ as was not intention of discouraging employees from raising concerns but rather discouraging them from creating rumours and whingeing amongst themselves – Commission did find that applicant contravene obligations under charter and code by permitting employee to address members of crew regarding ‘dobbing’ incident, particularly in circumstances where applicant knew that employee wanted to give speech about another crew member and applicant had not made any inquiries about the truth of matter – applicant should have pointed out to employee that speech to members of crew was inappropriate and in breach of code and charter – applicant should have obtained further information concerning why employee reported sleeping co-worker before chastising him for doing so – Commission satisfied sound, defensible and well founded reasons to dismiss applicant based on conduct [Selvachandran] – Commission also considered fact applicant was notified of reasons for dismissal and provided opportunity to respond – also considered length of employment history, whether his treatment was consistent with the treatment of other staff, the economic and personal circumstances of the applicant, the gravity of the conduct engaged in and the applicant’s remorse for his actions – Commission found, having regard to totality of conduct on which Mt Arthur relied to dismiss applicant, satisfied in all circumstances that applicant’s dismissal was not disproportionate to gravity of his conduct, nor was it harsh in any other sense – satisfied that respondent’s dismissal of applicant was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – applicant’s unfair dismissal application dismissed. Crebert v Mt Arthur Coal P/L
…
