Tasmanian Industrial Commission

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.29 application for the hearing of an industrial dispute

The Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia
Tasmanian Branch
(T.3035 of 1991)

and

Tasmanian Cleaning Services Pty Ltd
(Trading as Tasmanian Carpet Cleaning)

Termination of employment

REASONS FOR DECISION

This was a dispute hearing application made under Section 29 of the Act by The Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch (the Union) arising out of the termination of two employees by Tasmanian Cleaning Services Pty Ltd trading as Tasmanian Carpet Cleaning (the Company).

At the hearing Mr G Adams appeared for the Union and Mr F Ireland appeared on behalf of the Company.

The relevant facts of the case were that the Company operated a cleaning service especially for carpets. A significant part of the carpet cleaning arose out of "floods" where a carpet surface became inundated for some reason or other. The Company had also developed special drying fans for use in the cleaning of "floods" and also sold numbers of the fans.

A key factor in the operations of the Company were four vans which were equipped especially with motor-operated vacuum systems and pressure pumps. The total value of each fully equipped van was said to be around $50 000.

One employee was assigned to each van and it became his or her sole responsibility for use and maintenance. After initial training an employee would generally work alone under the supervision of a director and virtual owner of the Company, Mr Alan Nichols.

The two cleaners had their employment terminated at different times, one, Mr Phillip Bakes, following an altercation with Mr Nichols over an incorrect time sheet and the other, Mr Michael Allen, was handed a letter of termination stating "neglect of duty, unsatisfactory work performance and misconduct."

Both the employees (Messrs Bakes and Allen) and the employer (Mr Nichols) were called as witnesses. There were claims and counter-claims from both sides out of which I am satisfied that:

• Mr Nichols was an exacting employer who set high standards for work and maintenance procedures.

• Messrs Bakes and Allen had not met Mr Nichols requirements and each had been cautioned a number of times.

• Mr Nichols' dealings with his employees and methods in terminating the two cleaners were at times unusual, but not reprehensible.

• Messrs Bakes and Allen had each failed in that:

• Mr Allen had damaged his van seriously, had damaged one of the motors in his van through not following clear instructions and was prone to overly long conversations with clients. He also had excessively long private phone calls in the van at the employer's cost.

• Mr Bakes was not satisfactory in his dealings with clients from whom there had been several complaints. On the day of his instant dismissal on being asked to correct a work sheet, he had called Mr Nichol's a "f...g pig". He had a number of vehicle accidents and on occasion refused to do some jobs.

• Both employees had been negligent in keeping the drying fans clean as specifically instructed.

In considering all the facts of these cases, therefore, I am not satisfied that the two terminations were harsh, unjust or unreasonable and I decline to overrule them.

P A Imlach
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
G H Adams for The Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, Tasmanian Branch.
D F Ireland for Tasmanian Carpet Cleaning Services Pty Ltd.

Date and place of hearing:
1991.
Hobart:
May 9.