Desmond Robert Howard Anthony v Orbit Drilling Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 309

Desmond Anthony was the Safety & Training Manager at Orbit Drilling Pty Ltd (Orbit) from September 2010 through to his termination on 19 April 2011. Mr Farr, Orbit's Operations Manager, appeared on their behalf and Mr Anthony was self represented.

Mr Anthony's evidence was that half an hour prior to finishing his shift, he was summonsed into Mr Farr's office and told that he was fired because he did not stay at the correct accommodation camp. Mr Anthony denied having ever been instructed to stay at one particular camp or being advised of any misconduct. Mr Anthony also alleged no dispute resolution procedure was implemented to deal with Orbit's grievances, he did not receive any warning, and there was no legitimate reason to terminate his employment.

Mr Farr cited an incident on 14 February 2011 where a number of employees reported that Mr Anthony urinated in front of them and physically assaulted an employee. Those allegations were denied by Mr Anthony.

As part of Mr Farr's investigations into the incident, statements were taken from those involved. Three of the five employees who witnessed the incident gave statements, the other two had left Orbit.

Although the statements were tendered and considered at the hearing, the parties were not made available for cross-examination. Commissioner Williams did not place any significance on that given Mr Farr's lack of legal experience.

Mr Anthony did not challenge the statements, he simply denied the incident occurred.

Commissioner Williams found no basis to suspect that the statements of the three employees were fabricated or that they had conspired against Mr Anthony. Further, the statements provided a detailed description of what occurred, and were sufficiently different to not raise any suspicion of collusion.

In contrast, Mr Anthony's recollection was vague and without detail.

Accepting the incident had occurred as described, Commissioner Williams held there was a valid reason for Orbit to terminate Mr Anthony's employment.

There were a number of procedural flaws in that Mr Anthony was not given sufficient notification of his dismissal and the reasons were not spelt out in his letter of dismissal. That said, the incident on 14 February 2011 was discussed with Mr Anthony during a meeting with Mr Farr. During that conference it was made clear to Mr Anthony the incident was the reason for his dismissal. Although the incident was not elaborated upon, simply referred to as 'the incident', Mr Farr said that tact had been adopted so as to not embarrass Mr Anthony in front of Mr Smith, the Managing Director, and his assistant, Mr Pedley.

Although the reasons for Mr Anthony's dismissal were not made entirely clear, he was given the opportunity to respond during the meeting with Mr Farr. Indeed, Mr Anthony did respond by saying that the allegations were false.

Commissioner Williams held that although Orbit's handling of the matter was deficient, Mr Anthony's conduct was serious and constituted a valid reason for dismissal. The procedural deficiencies did not render Mr Anthony's dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Mr Anthony's application was therefore dismissed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.