Restaurant in Australia
Australian did not find the dismissal fair, the court gave him reason and forced the company to readmit the worker with the same conditions.
David Jenkins was going to work in the afternoon. Entered at 16h. But that day, in the morning, the paddadro called him: the Aunt had died. He requested license to the company – in Portugal it would be disgusting license – and did not go to work.
He spent the day with his stepfather, he returned home in the late afternoon. The girlfriend insisted for him to leave the house at night, to get to a dinner she had already agreed with friends – and went to restaurant.
In the restaurant, it was Seen by your boss. David still went to him, tried to greet him, but the boss did not stretched his hand.
Two days later, it was warned by the company: complaint About an “unacceptable” conduct, because it should be working at that time.
On top of that, that was a party day, Australia’s day.
He was suspended, waiting for internal investigation. The next day, new letter: accused of a serious failure – improper use of the license, breaking the company’s code of conduct and ethics.
He answered in writing, as the employer asked. He claimed that he asked for a license that day because he was not able to work. And he sent a document that proved that his aunt had died.
More than a month later, it was dismissed. With immediate effects.
The company thinks the worker was dishonest and that his aunt’s death was a pretext for going to a social event instead of working. In addition, he led to come and go from his stepfather’s house, would also be well to do his work – driving vehicles to docks.
David Defended: He spent the day with the stepfather, before, because he is one of the “most important” people of his life and because the stepfather had a very close relationship with his aunt. It was “too affected” to work.
The worker did not conform to the decision. Led the case to Justice, In the case to Fair Work Commission (FWC)-which gave David right and forced the company to readmit it with the same conditions; and pay the salaries you owed you.
He considered dismissal “hard, unfair and irrational.” He recalled that over 4 years in that company, David Jenkins has never been the target of any process.
In addition, it defends FWC, the time of travel home to stepfather is very little, compared to the time it would be driving vehicles in employment.
David Jenkins got his “definitive revenge,” summarizes the. But it is satisfied now: does not keep a grudge and will continue to work with the “maximum” of its abilities.
