Greenwood v Sth. East Livestock Health and Pest Authority. [2012] NSWIRComm 1017

Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Greenwood v Sth. East Livestock Health and Pest Authority. [2012] NSWIRComm 1017 Hearing dates: 30/04/12, 01/05/12,02/05/12,03/05/12. Decision date: 09 August 2012 Before: Ritchie C Decision: Catchwords: Appeal against termination. Appellant long term employee alleged to have wrongly painted sheep at Cooma sale yards. Also that he had made a statement during a Return to Work meeting as a consequence of having his access to firearms and poisons restricted. Found both to have occurred. Also took into consideration other work issues that existed and the complete break down in trust in the working relationship between all parties. Appeal rejected. Legislation Cited: Stock Diseases Act, 1923 Cases Cited: Franks v Roads & Traffic Authority(1996) NSWCA 192. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Gregory Walter Greenwood (Appellant)

South Eastern Livestock Health & Pest Authority(Respondent) Representation: Ms Keys (Appellant)

Mr Y Sharif (Respondent) Mr R Hassell of Sparke Helmore Lawyers.(Respondent) File Number(s): IRC 1691 of 2011

DECISION

Introduction 1The South East Livestock Health and Pest Authority (SELPHA) was created around January 2009 and replaced the previous system of Rural Lands Protection Boards (RLPB). 2On 1 November 2011 Mr Gregory Walter Greenwood ( the appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal- Public Sector Discipline as a result of a Refuse Increment ( this form was incorrectly filled out and the issue at the time was the "Failure to Notify" re allegations of misconduct) by his employer named as South East Livestock Health and Pest Authority (the respondent). 3Before the matter came before the Commission , the respondent notified the appellant by correspondence dated 30 November 2011 that he was terminated with effect from 2 December 2011. 4The matter came on for conciliation before Bishop C on 21 December 2011 but did not settle and the standard directions for the filing and serving of evidentiary material was provided to the parties. 5The hearing took place in Queanbeyan over four days from 30 April 2011 to 3 May 2011. At the completion of the evidence, parties sought and were granted the opportunity to provide final submissions in writing and were provided a timetable for the filing. This timetable was adjusted at the request of the appellant's representative on two occasions as she had difficulties adhering to the date for filing. A final timetable was made for the filing of their written final submissions on the basis that the period from 11 July to 23 July would not be counted if the Commission found in favour of the appellant and awarded back pay.