Mr S was informed that there were concerns about his work practices and work ethic and that these would be discussed in a meeting that afternoon. Mr S had a union representative present at the meeting. He admitted to smoking in the workplace but denied the other allegations.
Female staff alleging that Mr S verbally abused them were concerned about their identities being disclosed to him. The employer refused to tell Mr S who had made these allegations and when and where the incidents were alleged to have occurred. When Mr S and his representative subsequently refused to comment further, he was summarily dismissed.
The dismissal was held unjustified for two reasons:
Firstly, if upheld, each of the allegations amounted to a breach of the employer’s House Rules, which contained a warnings procedure for misconduct. This should have been followed, as it would have allowed Mr S the opportunity to address his inappropriate behaviour and improve before being dismissed.
Secondly, the investigation of the complaints was unfair. As he had been provided with such limited detail of the allegations of verbal abuse, it was “virtually impossible” for Mr S to explain himself. The Authority has recognized that in exceptional circumstances, there may be good reason not to disclose the makers of complaints, but this case was not exceptional. As much detail as possible must be provided to employees in order for them to be able to fairly respond. There may be explanations for complaints (for example that the complaint maker hates the other employee for beating them in a tiddlywinks competition) but without knowing who made complaint, it is difficult to offer any explanation.
Mr S was awarded compensation and remuneration for his lost wages, but as there was some substance to the complaints, there was a reduction to recognise his contributory conduct. Mr S was still awarded over $10,000.00.
While there may be truth in allegations, a fair and transparent investigation procedure must be followed.
