NSW Caselaw
Transport Appeal Boards New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Norman v State Transit Authority [2012] NSWTAB 12 Hearing dates: 6 and 7 February 2012 Decision date: 20 April 2012 Before: Bishop C (Board) Decision: Appeal allowed Catchwords: PUBLIC SERVICE - discipline - Bus Operator Trainer - issues raised re training arising from discrete checks - regressed in rank/grade - appeal to Transport Appeal Board - no evidence at to adverse results for trainees - no evidence from supervisors - no complaints from trainees - issues with training materials identified - insufficient evidence to support disciplinary decision made - counselling and further monitoring recommended. Legislation Cited: Transport Appeals Board Act 1980 Transport Administration (Staff) Regulation 2005 Cases Cited: Antonic v Roads and Traffic Authority [2005] NSWIRComm 344 Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union New South Wales Branch (on behalf of Brooks) v City of Sydney RSL [2002] NSWIRComm 1013 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Duhbihur v Transport Appeal Board and Anor [2005] NSWSC 811 Norman v State Transit Authority TD/379/09 Wheeler v RailCorp [2011] NSWTAB 21 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Catherine Norman (Appellant) State Transit Authority Division of the New South Wales Government Service (Respondent) File Number(s): TAB 1269 of 2011
DECISION
Introduction 1Ms Norman commenced employment with the State Transit Authority (STA) on 26 May 2003 as a Trainee Bus Operator. She was subsequently appointed to the position of Bus Operator Trainer Level 1 at Brookvale Depot effective as from 8 November 2008. 2On the 20 September 2011 STA issued a Notice of Punishment to Ms Norman regressing her to a Bus Operator Level 2. 3On the 20 September 2011 Ms Norman lodged an appeal with respect to her regression by the STA to the Transport Appeal Boards. In her Notice of Appeal she indicated a plea of 'not guilty'. 4The matter was listed for disciplinary conciliation before Commissioner Macdonald on 12 October 2011, at which time conciliation took place. As no settlement could be reached between the parties, directions were issued as to the filing and exchange of written cases and statements pursuant to Practice Note 22 and the appeal was re-allocated to the Board as currently constituted and set down for hearing on the 6 and 7 February 2012.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate