Mr X was asked to attend a meeting where he was presented him with a printout of the offending entry and the University’s IT policy. The University alleged he had deliberately spelt out an objectionable phrase in the computer system and had failed to comply with the requirement to ensure comments were added to work orders. Mr X was suspended on full pay after this meeting.
At a preliminary investigation meeting the employee admitted he was responsible for the entries, apologised, offered to correct them and said it would not happen again. The University decided to proceed with a disciplinary investigation. Mr X was advised that the University regarded the matter as serious misconduct and that termination of his employment was a possible outcome.
At the disciplinary meeting Mr X was not represented. At the meeting he was shown an email for the first time written by another employee who made comments about his “general negative and offensive attitude”. Mr X quite rightly objected to not having been provided with a copy of the email before the meeting and the meeting was adjourned so that he had an opportunity to consider it. Of significance this email was in the possession of the employer right back before Mr X was suspended.
Mr X argued that his conduct was not serious because it was not directed at anyone personally. He also said that he had been under stress at the time and that his last performance review had been positive.
Mr X was terminated and the employer relied on the fact that the words were objectionable and entered after repeated reminders to put proper details of work in the system.
The Employment Relations Authority accepted that the employee’s actions were wrong, but held it did not amount to serious misconduct meriting termination.
The Authority concluded that the employee had not set out deliberately to corrupt the integrity of the University’s computer system. Further, the incident was inconsistent with his previous performance record.
The late introduction of the email about the employee’s general attitude was unfair because he should have been made aware of it from the outset and been able to respond to it before he was suspended.
The Authority concluded that a fair and reasonable employer would have considered alternatives to dismissal, particularly because the employee had apologised for his behaviour and offered to attend an anger management course at his own expense.
The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed and ordered that he be reinstated to his position.
