Sunil Dissanayake and State Transit Authority of New South Wales [2016] NSWIRComm 1010

Sunil Dissanayake and State Transit Authority of New South Wales [2016] NSWIRComm 1010

The Commission found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Dissanayake failed to comply with the clear and unambiguous M2 Work Order instruction to check wheel nut tension and that the allegations supporting dismissal were proven. State Transit conducted a proper investigation and afforded procedural fairness. Given the seriousness of the safety breach and the prior final warning for a safety breach, summary dismissal was not disproportionate and was neither unreasonable nor unjust. However, the dismissal was harsh because of Mr Dissanayake's length of service, age, difficulty obtaining alternative employment, and the loss of notice and pro rata long service leave caused by summary...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief From Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to S 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Summary dismissal found harsh but not unreasonable or unjust; reinstatement impracticable; compensation ordered.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'harsh, Unreasonable or Unjust Dismissal' 'procedural Fairness' 'workplace Safety' 'failure to Follow Lawful and Reasonable Directions' 'reinstatement' 'compensation']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'unfair Dismissal'] ['summary Dismissal' 'harsh, Unreasonable or Unjust Dismissal' 'procedural Fairness' 'workplace Safety' 'failure to Follow Lawful and Reasonable Directions' 'reinstatement' 'compensation']

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

Application for Relief From Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to S 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Dissanayake failed to comply with work instructions requiring him to check wheel nut tension on bus MO1196.' 'Whether the dismissal was unreasonable or unjust because Mr Dissanayake said he was unaware of revised maintenance procedures and because later inspections did not identify the defect.' 'Whether Mr Dissanayake was afforded procedural fairness in the disciplinary investigation.' 'Whether summary dismissal was harsh having regard to loss of notice and pro rata long service leave, length of service, age and difficulty obtaining alternative employment.' 'Whether reinstatement was practicable or compensation should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Dissanayake failed to comply with the clear and unambiguous M2 Work Order instruction to check wheel nut tension and that the allegations supporting dismissal were proven. State Transit conducted a proper investigation and afforded procedural fairness. Given the seriousness of the safety breach and the prior final warning for a safety breach, summary dismissal was not disproportionate and was neither unreasonable nor unjust. However, the dismissal was harsh because of Mr Dissanayake's length of service, age, difficulty obtaining alternative employment, and the loss of notice and pro rata long service leave caused by summary...

Court Disposition

Summary dismissal found harsh but not unreasonable or unjust; reinstatement impracticable; compensation ordered.

Orders

  • ["State Transit shall pay to Mr Dissanayake an amount equivalent to six weeks' ordinary pay at the rate of pay applicable to him at the time his employment ceased, less appropriate taxation, payable within 21 days of today's date." 'Matter No 2016/59082 (formerly IRC 911 of 2014) is hereby concluded.']