T3155
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Metal and Engineering Workers' Union and Muir Engineering
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:
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 Appearances: Date and place of hearing: |