The Fair Work Commission states
On 15 December 2017, Ms Susan Anson (the applicant) filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. Her application stated that she was notified of her dismissal from Western District Health Service (the employer) on 30 November 2017. The dismissal took effect on 30 November 2017. It was a summary dismissal.
The applicant was one of two nurses allegedly asleep on duty at 5.30am in the Coleraine campus of the employer. She and another nurse were in charge of 10 residents and seven acute care patients. Both were allegedly discovered asleep by their Nurse Unit Manager, who arrived unexpectedly early. The applicant was dismissed for being asleep, and also for repeatedly refusing directions to provide a response to the allegation or meet with her employer. She had previously refused requests to attend. She provided a variety of explanations for her refusals including insisting on a particular union representative. The employer eventually refused to allow this representative to enter the premises because of her allegedly aggressive and unsafe conduct. ...
The Agreement, and in particular clause 15 of the Agreement, are concerned with giving an employee due process while enabling an employer to raise and process issues of ‘performance’, ‘conduct’, ‘misconduct’, and ‘serious misconduct’ (clause 15.2 of the Agreement). There is little suggestion that it extends to prohibiting termination if an employee refuses to attend a meeting or makes the process unworkable. Even if there was some form of breach, it was a breach resulting from the employee’s own actions and not that of the employer, and the employee cannot rely on it. The employer made reasonable endeavours to afford the applicant due process, while the applicant and Ms Brown were obstructive and uncooperative.In Victoria the State Government has announced a review by the Victorian Law Reform Commission of contempt of court laws.
The Commission will consider whether the state's contempt regime needs to be modernised to "enhance public confidence in the justice system and allow for clearer enforcement". The review is a response to recommendations by former Supreme Court Judge Frank Vincent following his review of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic).
The Commission will examine:
- contempt in the face of the court, such as disrupting or obstructing court proceedings
- sub judice contempt, such as publishing information that could interfere with a court proceeding or a person’s right to a fair trial
- juror contempt, such as a juror acting improperly by conducting an unauthorised internet search while participating in a trial
- contempt by breach of court order, such as publishing information that breaches a suppression order
- contempt by scandalising the court, such as an ongoing interference of justice by publishing information casting doubt on the integrity and impartiality of a judicial officer.
The review will include consideration of whether temporary restrictions on publication should be introduced to better protect victims at the time that alleged perpetrators are charged with sexual or family violence related offences, drawing on a key recommendation of the Open Courts Act Review.
The Commission will make recommendations about existing suppression orders made before the introduction of the Open Courts Act.
The review is expected to be completed by 31 December 2019.
