Австралия (охрана труда). Сотрудник был уволен за написание жалоб, содержащих его подозрения о том, что в организации нарушаются правила охраны труда; хотя он и был представителем внутреннего органа организации, отвечающего за охрану труда, это не дало повод независимой Комиссии по трудовым спорам восстановить работника, потому, что его жалобы о нарушении охраны труда были признаны необоснованными и обременительными для нанимателя.

Home | About Us

---

Case Study: Disciplining a worker for making 

vexatious safety claims

Tuesday, 24th February, 2015, by Alanna Furlan

In today's Health & Safety Bulletin:

• Case Study: Disciplining a worker for making vexatious safety claims

Dear Reader,

Under health and safety legislation and the Fair Work Act 2009, workers have a right to raise their concerns over unsafe practices at work.

This is a protected activity under general protections provisions, meaning that if you discipline or dismiss a worker for raising a safety concern, you could face penalties of up to $10,200 if you’re an individual or $51,000 if you’re a body corporate.

However, as Michael Selinger explains in the case study below, there are sometimes exceptions to this rule.

If a worker raises a safety concern in an inappropriate manner, or makes claims they know to be false or vexatious, you may be justified in taking disciplinary action against them.

See you on Thursday,

Alanna Furlan
Editor
Health & Safety Bulletin

................................................................. Advertisement ..........................................................

Got a question about employment law? Get it answered quickly and comprehensively by a legal professional – and never get a bill. Click here to find out how

...........................................................................................................................

Case Study: Disciplining a worker for making 

vexatious safety claims

By Michael Selinger
Editor-in-Chief, Health & Safety Handbook

Businesses are often uncertain as to whether they can discipline a worker for the manner in which they raise health and safety concerns.

Both safety legislation and industrial laws provide legal protection to a person who raises work health and safety issues, particularly where the person is a member of a safety committee or holds an elected position of a health and safety representative.

However, a recent case in the Fair Work Commission (FWC) demonstrates that there is a limit to that protection. That limit is misconduct.

The case

In the case of Alphonse Kaskol v TNT Australia Pty Ltd (2015), the employer had reached the end of its patience with an employee who continued to make what the Commission called “false, spurious and vexatious claims against his ... colleagues ...[which were] totally without substance”.

Deputy President Ingrid Asbury found the employee was acting outside his role as a health and safety committee member and was “not immune” because of his statutory role.

TNT sacked Mr Kaskol in October 2013 after he accused managers of covering up his safety concerns.

The claims, which were found to be vexatious, initially resulted in the employee receiving a warning.

The conduct of the employee became worse when he emailed TNT directors and managers and insulted them about their conduct. He accused some managers of not being qualified, being lazy and ignoring his safety complaints.

The matter reached breaking point when he accused other employees at the business of racism and nepotism. After a final warning letter was issued to the employee and a requirement to explain his position was ignored, he was sacked.

The verdict

Ultimately, the court rejected the employee’s unfair dismissal claim as it was satisfied that he had acted vexatiously and that his employer had acted extremely reasonably in the circumstances.

Importantly, despite the employee being a member of the safety committee and having raised safety concerns, this was found by the FWC not to be related to the decision to terminate his employment. As such, the employee could not satisfy the Commission that he had been discriminated against or treated unfairly because of his position.

What you can learn from this

The case is a useful reminder that the role of a safety committee member or safety representative is an important one that comes with a responsibility to discharge the obligations in a genuine, honest and impartial manner.

If your business has a safety committee or appoints safety representatives, it is important to remind them of these responsibilities.

Warm regards,

Michael Selinger 
Editor-in-Chief
Health & Safety Handbook

Like the Health & Safety Bulletin? Check out our other free bulletins: Workplace BulletinGet the very latest employment law tips, ideas, news and practical advice sent straight to your inbox. Click here to sign up now. Self-Managed Super Fund Bulletin Receive all the information, ideas and tips you need to manage your own super fund. Click here to sign up now.

---

Please whitelist the Health & Safety Bulletin to make sure you get every edition delivered to your inbox.
The information in this email is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please return the message to the sender and delete it from your records. All content is © 2007-2015 Portner Press Pty Ltd All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer: We research our recommendations and articles thoroughly, but disclaim all liability for any inaccuracies or omissions found in our publications. Click here to view our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.
Queries: For general enquiries, email cs@portnerpress.com.au or call 1300 782 911.
Health & Safety Helpdesk: Paid subscribers to the Health & Safety Handbook can ask our experts for advice.
Syndication: To republish an Health & Safety Bulletin article, please email cs@portnerpress.com.au for information.
Health & Safety Bulletin ISSN 1837-6533
Portner Press Pty Ltd
96-98 Bridport Street
Albert Park VIC 3206
Australia