{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"OHS Daily News","provider_url":"https:\/\/ohsdaily.com.au\/core","title":"TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT \u2013 Small Business Fair Dismissal Code \u2013 ss.388, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 application for relief from unfair dismissal \u2013 respondent was small security company and objected to application on basis that dismissal consistent with Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (the Code) \u2013 applicant dismissed for serious misconduct but also given one week's notice of termination of employment, during which he continued to work for respondent \u2013 Ryman considered \u2013 question whether dismissal can be said to have been made on basis of serious misconduct \u2013 Commission felt it difficult to accept reliance on serious misconduct in circumstances where applicant allowed to continue working with respondent for one week period after being notified of dismissal \u2013 Commission held that applicant's alleged conduct cannot be categorised as serious misconduct within meaning of FW Act \u2013 applicant and respondent submitted different accounts of events leading up to dismissal \u2013 Commission preferred and accepted evidence of respondent \u2013 satisfied dismissal was compliant with the Code \u2013 application dismissed. Karkun v Zone Security P\/L<\/strong>","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT \u2013 Small Business Fair Dismissal Code \u2013 ss.388, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 application for relief from unfair dismissal \u2013 respondent was small security company and objected to application on basis that dismissal consistent with Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (the Code) \u2013 applicant dismissed for serious misconduct but also given one week’s notice of termination of employment, during which he continued to work for respondent \u2013 Ryman considered \u2013 question whether dismissal can be said to have been made on basis of serious misconduct \u2013 Commission felt it difficult to accept reliance on serious misconduct in circumstances where applicant allowed to continue working with respondent for one week period after being notified of dismissal \u2013 Commission held that applicant’s alleged conduct cannot be categorised as serious misconduct within meaning of FW Act \u2013 applicant and respondent submitted different accounts of events leading up to dismissal \u2013 Commission preferred and accepted evidence of respondent \u2013 satisfied dismissal was compliant with the Code \u2013 application dismissed. Karkun v Zone Security P\/L<\/strong><\/a><\/blockquote>\n