|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Raymond John Hanson and Cosgrove Park Bowls Club Inc
Industrial dispute - termination of employment - arbitration REASONS FOR DECISION This was an application for a dispute hearing made under Section 29 of Industrial Relations Act 1984 by Raymond John Hanson of Launceston. Mr Hanson was in dispute with the Cosgrove Park Bowls Club Inc of South Launceston (the Club) over the alleged unfair termination of his employment with the Club as a greenkeeper. The dispute was precipitated by Mr Hanson's suspension as a Club member following two separate incidents in the Club Bar when Mr Hanson engaged in heated exchanges with two other members. The suspension was upheld on appeal by a special general meeting of the Club. In the main Mr Hanson's 20 weeks suspension meant that he could not engage as an active playing member of the Club for the period of the suspension. The Club advised Mr Hanson in writing that his suspension did not jeopardise his employment situation and that he would continue to have full access to Club facilities in the course of fulfilling his work commitments. Despite the Club's formal re-assurance as to his work situation, Mr Hanson, acting on advice from the Secretary of the Northern Tasmanian Bowls Association (the NTBA) to the effect that entering the Club premises would jeopardise his bowling association membership Mr Hanson decided not to report to work until he was sure of his position in relation to his "bowling career".
Mr Hanson did not go to work on Thursday morning 12 September 1996, but, went to see his solicitor at noon that day. After that he telephoned the Club greens supervisor, Mr Ray Parish and advised that he was returning to work. Mr Hanson stated that Mr Parish accepted the advice and indicated he would advise Mr Culley. Mr Hanson stated that on the Thursday afternoon he worked at his home welding a piece of Club equipment. Mr Hanson went to work on Friday, 13 September 1996; later that morning Mr Culley and Mr Cleaver came to the Club. They spoke to Mr Hanson, told him he had abandoned his employment and gave him a letter confirming the termination of his employment by the Club on the basis that by not turning up for work on Thursday morning (12 September) after the meeting on Wednesday (11 September) he had abandoned his employment. He was said to have been paid all his entitlements up till Monday, 9 September 1996. In the consultation with his lawyer at noon on Thursday (12 September) Mr Hanson was advised to return to work pending negotiations with the NTBA over the affair. Mr Hanson denied he had broken his contract of employment saying he never intended leaving his employment. Mr Hanson sought re-instatement, but, if the Commission found that course to be impractical he sought a payment for wages lost during the period from 9 September 1996 till 5 November 1996 at the rate of $430 gross per week. Decision Under cross-examination Mr Culley, the Club President, agreed with the proposition that it was reasonable for Mr Hanson to believe he ought to stay away from work on account of the advice given to him by the NTBA Secretary. Mr Cleaver, the Club Treasurer, was adamant that Mr Hanson had failed to report for work, but, his evidence in relation to Mr Hanson's absence on Thursday morning, 12 September 1996, was ambiguous. Mr A Cameron of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry representing the Club, said that the involvement of the NTBA substantially confused this dispute: certainly there was great confusion, but, I consider that the Club's officers and Mr Hanson also contributed to the general confusion. On Monday, 9 September 1996, the President Mr Culley should have told Mr Hanson to remain at work whilst the advice from the NTBA was checked. He also appears not be have notified Mr Hanson till Wednesday evening as to the result of his enquiries - significantly later than his own 24 hour deadline. Mr Culley's statement that he thought it was reasonable for Mr Hanson to stay away from work on account of the NTBA advice was hardly the thing for the Club President to think and say when the very nub of the dispute and the reason for Mr Hanson's employment termination was because he preferred to take notice of the NTBA as to his employment responsibilities not his employer. The Commission is firmly of the view that it was unreasonable for Mr Hanson, in the industrial context, to put his "bowling career" before his employment. As an employee his first duty was to his employer, the Club. Until Mr Hanson had obtained industrial advice (from his union or solicitor) he should have stayed at work particularly as the Club had re-assured him a number of times as to his continued employment. In all the events brought forward in this dispute Mr Hanson did not request permission to be absent from work at any time - he seems to have acted unilaterally from start to finish. In view of all the confusion from Monday morning till Wednesday evening, I am inclined not to be too critical of Mr Hanson, but, after the dire warning from the Club on the Wednesday afternoon, Mr Hanson should have reported for work on Thursday morning. By unilaterally staying away from work on that morning I find that Mr Hanson did abandon his employment. This is not to say that the Commission condones Mr Hanson's absences from Monday to Wednesday and maybe Thursday afternoon, but, the circumstances during those times were clouded by the actions of the Club and I do not intend to go further with that. I am satisfied that the Club, for all its inadequacies, did have responsibilities to maintain its premises and greens and it had every right to require Mr Hanson to be at work: I am not prepared to interfere with the Club's decision. In view of all the circumstances and the confusion I consider that Mr Hanson should be paid his wages for the week-ending Friday, 13 September 1996, less any amount already paid for work done that week. If necessary, an order for such payment will be issued.
P A Imlach Appearances: Date and place of hearing: |
