QLD Does Colleague Have Grounds for Unfair Dismissal?

[Rod]

I know Clancy, I was smiling when I wrote it. The justice system often seems that way, but in reality, most of the time, it works sort of OK.

what 'legal' obligation does the employer have to believe him? None.

Not true. 'Reasonable' here means what a reasonable person would do. It is an objective test, not subjective. I stand by my opinion that the employee was unfairly dismissed.

To have a subjective test would result in all sorts of ridiculous claims by employers that would be upheld by courts - not workable or sustainable having a subjective test.

 

[Clancy]

I know Clancy, I was smiling when I wrote it. The justice system often seems that way, but in reality, most of the time, it works sort of OK.



Not true. 'Reasonable' here means what a reasonable person would do. It is an objective test, not subjective. I stand by my opinion that the employee was unfairly dismissed.

To have a subjective test would result in all sorts of ridiculous claims by employers that would be upheld by courts - not workable or sustainable having a subjective test.

I could be wrong but i thought that type of thing would apply if the employer denied taking the T shirt, but he admitted to it?

 

[Rod]

You used the would 'take'. 'Take' implies a deliberate decision to move an object. The OP said the employee never consciously moved the object therefore it can be argued the object was not 'taken'. This is where it gets tricky. I suspect there is something else that has triggered the dismissal and the employer has now found an excuse to dismiss the employee that they didn't have before. Fairly common behaviour, but not exactly fair.

 

[Clancy]

You used the would 'take'. 'Take' implies a deliberate decision to move an object. The OP said the employee never consciously moved the object therefore it can be argued the object was not 'taken'. This is where it gets tricky. I suspect there is something else that has triggered the dismissal and the employer has now found an excuse to dismiss the employee that they didn't have before. Fairly common behaviour, but not exactly fair.

Certainly not fair, but i am just saying in terms of the legality, the employee has admitted to taking it and the employer has chosen to interpret it negatively. We may never know the employers true motivation but from a legal stand point, it does not look like something you can easily say is an unreasonable position for them to take.

 

[Rod]

from a legal stand point, it does not look like something you can easily say is an unreasonable position

You keep saying this. I have outlined above why this is not true.

I keep saying the employee has not admitted to 'taking' the object.

You need to stop thinking in layperson's terms when discussing legal issues. I've said as much as I can, good luck to the OP's friend, hope they take the matter to the FWC (within 21 days from date of dismissal - clock is ticking).

 

[Clancy]

You keep saying this. I have outlined above why this is not true.

I keep saying the employee has not admitted to 'taking' the object.

You need to stop thinking in layperson's terms when discussing legal issues. I've said as much as I can, good luck to the OP's friend, hope they take the matter to the FWC (within 21 days from date of dismissal - clock is ticking).

He has not admitted to taking the object? Oh well then that's different, your completely rite of course.