|
|
Two employees terminated for attending a strip show during work hours |
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) decided to support Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) in the Company's dismissal of two employees following an investigation which identified them as having left the work site during their shift. The Company had been informed that the two employees were seen wearing the high-visibility Carter Holt Harvey uniforms attending a strip show at the Gympie AFL Club for between one and two hours. |
The Australian Workers Union (AWU) on behalf of the employees, alleged that the termination was harsh, unjust and/or unreasonable and sought reinstatement without loss of pay or entitlements. |
The Company labelled the actions of the employees as serious misconduct which represented a serious safety threat to fellow employees and the Company's operations. Specifically, they were alleged to have breached site procedures by absenting themselves without authority, abandoning their duties in the workplace, exposing their co-workers to a serious risk to health and safety and by exposing the Company's facility to an unacceptable risk of loss and damage. |
On review of the facts the QIRC made the following findings:
- the employees were notified of the reason for their dismissal;
- the dismissal was related to the conduct of the employees and their perceived failure to properly and honestly account for their activities on that evening;
- the employees were given opportunities to respond to the allegations; and
- the Company had good and reasonable grounds to believe that the employees had absented themselves without informing their team leader.
|
| It was held that their actions during the investigations and the unfair dismissal proceedings which followed resulted in the employer incurring additional costs for which the terminated employees were liable. |
Hence, the Deputy President of QIRC, Mr Bloomfield, concluded that the Company "was entitled to determine it had lost complete faith and trust in the employees because of their actions on the night and because of their complete failure to honestly account for their actions and, as a result, decide to terminate their employment." |
"Had they owned up to the events, and not continued to lie about it the whole way through, the [Company] might have taken a different approach to the whole matter. So might this Commission. The ultimate sanction of termination, given one act of indiscretion, over a 10 year period of employment, might normally be regarded as harsh." |
The QIRC awarded the payment of $12,000 in costs against the employees, based on the deputy president's assessment of their culpability for the additional costs in briefing Counsel about the preparation of a false witness statement; cross-examination of two of the employee's witnesses and a subsequent additional witness being called. |
Implications for employers |
The decision demonstrates that:
- In the appropriate circumstances costs can be awarded against the applicants in an unfair dismissal case, (which was previously unheard of) particularly against dishonest employees who give untruthful evidence.
- When the employees left the site without concern for their fellow employees or the responsibilities of the Company, they breached the Company's trust and faith in them, particularly when employees are under limited supervision and where the Company relies on the employees performing their work in a diligent and competent manner.
- Although this case arose in the QIRC, the principles behind the decision are equally applicable to Federal and State jurisdictions.
|
peter.mcnamara@cmlawyers.com.au
|
