Grant Maxwell Simes v Bridgestone Australia Ltd [1995] IRCA 155

C A T C H W O R D S

INDUSTRIAL LAW - Termination of Employment - whether termination of employment for valid reason connected with capacity or conduct - serious misconduct - whether Applicant accorded procedural fairness. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1988, ss.170EA, 170DE, 170DC, 170EE GRANT MAXWELL SIMES -v- BRIDGESTONE AUSTRALIA LTD No. NI 411 of 1994 JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: L FARRELL PLACE: ADELAIDE DATE: 20TH APRIL 1995

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NI 411 of 1994 B E T W E E N: GRANT MAXWELL SIMES Applicant AND BRIDGESTONE AUSTRALIA LTD Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER Judicial Registrar Farrell 20th April 1995 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The Application is dismissed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NI 411 of 1994 B E T W E E N: GRANT MAXWELL SIMES Applicant AND BRIDGESTONE AUSTRALIA LTD Respondent

BEFORE: JUDICIAL REGISTRAR FARRELL PLACE: ADELAIDE DATE: 20TH APRIL 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an Application pursuant to Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act. The Applicant claims compensation following the termination of his employment by the Respondent. Evidence in respect of the matter was given by the Applicant, Mr Simes, Mr Miles, Ms Thu Le, Mr Vonberg and Mr Stevens. I find the facts as follows. The Applicant was employed as a Process Engineering Manager by the Respondent. His employment was terminated on the 7th June 1994 for serious misconduct following an incident that occurred on the 2nd June 1994 between the Applicant and Mr Miles, a senior leading hand tool maker. The incident occurred on the number one line at the Respondent's Edwardstown premises. It was the evidence of Mr Miles and Ms Le that during the course of an altercation the Applicant struck Mr Miles on the face with his closed right hand . It was the Applicant's evidence that what occurred was accidental and followed from Mr Miles bumping the Applicant. I preferred the evidence of Mr Miles and Ms Le to that of the Applicant. I found the Applicant in giving his evidence was sometimes evasive and argumentative. He did not present in a straight forward fashion. His evidence was not always consistent and overall I found him to be an unsatisfactory witness. I am satisfied that the Applicant deliberately struck Mr Miles on the face with a closed hand. In my view that conduct was of a serious nature and warranted termination of the Applicant's employment. I think that the conduct was particularly serious in light of the fact that the Applicant was a Manager at the Respondent's premises. The Applicant also argued that the employer had failed in its duty to afford him procedural fairness pursuant to Section 170DC of the Industrial Relations Act. The Respondent's investigation consisted of Mr Vonberg taking statements from the Applicant, Mr Miles, and Ms Thu Le and then consulting with Mr White, the Corporate Industrial Relations Manager. Following that consultation he suspended the Applicant pending further investigations by Mr Stevens, the Employee Relations Manager. Mr Stevens gave evidence that he used Mr Vonberg's notes then interviewed the Applicant, Ms Thu Le and Mr Miles. He also made enquiries to find out if there were other witnesses. He accepted the versions of Mr Miles and Ms Thu Le as to what had occurred. He terminated the Applicant's employment the following day although he did permit the Union to make further submissions to him after the termination. In my view in the circumstances that was sufficient investigation to meet the requirements of the Act. For these reasons the Application is dismissed. I certify that this and the preceding 1 page are a true copy of my reasons for judgment. COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Tullgren COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr A Martin DATE OF HEARING: 10th and 11th April 1995