Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T3155

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

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

Metal and Engineering Workers' Union
(T.3155 of 1991)

and

Muir Engineering

 

COMMISSIONER R J WATLING

2 August 1991

Industrial dispute - alleged unfair dismissal

REASONS FOR DECISION

This application was made by the Metals and Engineering Workers' Union (the union) pursuant to section 29 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 for the purpose of settling a dispute between the union and Muir Engineering (the company), arising out of a dismissal of an employee - Mr Troy Lovell (the employee).

The union maintained that the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

The parties to this hearing agreed that the employee, even though he was being paid a 20% loading in lieu of sick leave, annual leave and public holidays, nevertheless, worked on a full time basis and should be seen as such for the purpose of this hearing.

Mr T Abey of the Tasmanian Confederation of Industries for the company submitted that the employee was not summarily dismissed but had his employment terminated because he was generally unsatisfactory.

He stated that the employee:

(a) had a poor attitude to work and his supervisor,

(b) his productivity was very spasmodic,

(c) on a number of occasions had verbally abused his supervisor when given direction by him,

(d) would continually leave his work station to talk to other employees.

Mr Abey presented two witnesses to substantiate his submissions and the employee gave evidence.

The main facts giving rise to the action taken by the employer i.e. to terminate the employee's services, were not shaken during the course of examination and cross examination of the employers witnesses.

Mr Baker, whilst admitting that the employee had used abusive language stated that the language used was in common use within the employer's establishment.

In rebuttal to that submission Mr Abey drew the distinction between abusive and/or bad language used in common speech and verbal abuse of a supervisor; I concur with that distinction.

In relation to the employees attitude to work and his lack of productivity I am prepared to accept the evidence given under oath by Mr Bennett, the employees supervisor for most of his employment. He was, in my view, a credible witness and he established that the employee had these issues brought to his attention for rectification on a number of occasions.

My task in this matter is to determine whether or not the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. If I find it falls into one or all of those categories, then I should look to a remedy. If on the other hand this cannot be established then the dismissal should stand.

On the evidence before me I cannot establish that the employees dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and therefore I am not prepared to interfere with the employers decision.

 

R J Watling
COMMISSIONER

Appearances:
Mr P Baker for the Metals and Engineering Workers' Union
Mr T Abey with Mr D di Martino for Muir Engineering.

Date and place of hearing:
1991
July 10, 30
Hobart