TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – appellant was dismissed by respondent for serious misconduct in relation to falsified medical certificate in intent to claim sick leave – appellant acknowledged altering certificate but not for the purpose of claiming sick leave – that it was submitted in error – Commission at first instance rejected appellant’s argument and found dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – appellant submitted various grounds of appeal relating to significant errors of fact and interpretation in decision – appellant contended Commission erred in finding she had provided an altered medical certificate for purpose of claiming sick leave and in finding there was a valid reason for dismissal – appellant claimed she amended certificate in 2015 to make it clear to the Bali surgery the amendment she required from them and to practise her PDF document editing skills – evidence contrasted with respondent’s technical evidence stating certificate in question was amended in 2016 – appellant then accepted she amended it in 2016 which she claimed was consistent with her evidence of using it for professional training development – claimed effect of medication and stress led her to submit amended certificate by accident – Full Bench noted decision in first instance found appellant did not submit certificate by mistake – found appellant changed her argument upon respondent’s evidence that certificate was last edited in 2016 – appeal process is for purpose of correcting error, not opportunity for unsuccessful parties to recast their case – found decision in first instance accepted respondent’s reasons for the dismissal as valid – among other grounds for appeal, appellant argued there was no basis for respondent to require appellant to submit medical certificate under enterprise agreement – Full Bench rejected argument and found respondent was not prevented from asking appellant to provide an improved certificate – appellant contended Commission erred in interpretation of evidence from several witness – Full Bench found no substance to claim – appellant contended Commission misrepresented her need to upgrade her PDF editing skills and respondent had ulterior motive in wanting to remove appellant – Full Bench found no error in Commission’s decision regarding such matters – appellant made complaints against her support person and that she was not effectively represented by her counsel in proceedings – Full Bench found no arguable case of error on part of the Commission in regard to these matters – Full Bench not satisfied appellant demonstrated arguable case to the required standard of proof – decision at first instance harmonious with previous decisions – appellant presented an argument which differed before the Commission in first instance works against public interest to re-enliven the case – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Bluzer against decision of Cribb C of 19 May 2017 [[2017] FWC 2536] Re: Monash University
…
