ETU v Essential Energy [2012] NSWIRComm 1025

ETU v Essential Energy [2012] NSWIRComm 1025

The WorkSafe Policy had been applied correctly. The Commission rejected the applicant's submission that the headings in Table 3.3 were wrong and accepted the respondent's interpretation that Step 2 required verification of the incident level by reference to section 3.3, Table 2 and the Incident Report, and that Table 3.3 listed high-level breaches committed by members of the crew. Given the Investigation Report concluded a high rating and Table 3 provided the applicable first offence disciplinary action, the respondent's disciplinary outcome was consistent with the policy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Dispute Notification Under S146 B of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['workplace Discipline' 'work Safe Policy' 'live Line Work Safety Breaches' 'risk Rating and Disciplinary Outcome' 'internal Appeal Processes']
['industrial Relations' 'employment' 'work Health and Safety'] ['workplace Discipline' 'work Safe Policy' 'live Line Work Safety Breaches' 'risk Rating and Disciplinary Outcome' 'internal Appeal Processes']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Dispute Notification Under S146 B of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Essential Energy correctly applied its OHS&E WorkSafe procedure to the investigated live line work incident.' 'Whether the incident and breaches were properly assessed as attracting a high offence disciplinary outcome.' 'Whether the High Offence warning notices should be revoked.']

Ratio Decidendi

The WorkSafe Policy had been applied correctly. The Commission rejected the applicant's submission that the headings in Table 3.3 were wrong and accepted the respondent's interpretation that Step 2 required verification of the incident level by reference to section 3.3, Table 2 and the Incident Report, and that Table 3.3 listed high-level breaches committed by members of the crew. Given the Investigation Report concluded a high rating and Table 3 provided the applicable first offence disciplinary action, the respondent's disciplinary outcome was consistent with the policy.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application and the Orders sought by the applicant are dismissed.' 'The matter is concluded.']