There was a 'systemic cover-up by management,' says worker
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with the case of a worker who claimed unfair dismissal because he fought for his injured dog.
The worker was a correctional case officer – dog handler at Serco Australia Pty Ltd. He worked at the Clarence Correctional Centre (CCC) near Grafton, New South Wales.
The correctional centre is Australia’s largest prison, accommodating approximately 1,700 inmates across male and female minimum, maximum and remand disciplines.
On 21 February 2022, when he was on annual leave, he was notified that one of the dogs he was training at the CCC, a general purpose dog (GPD), “Tauvey,” had an injury to her tail and was bleeding.
He then went to the CCC and took Tauvey to the vet, where it was treated for the injury. The vet also amputated a part of the dog’s tail.
‘Extremely upset’
According to records, the worker was “extremely upset” about Tauvey’s injury and “was eager to find out what caused it.”
He told the employer to investigate the event that caused the dog’s injury. However, the worker felt “dissatisfied with the steps taken” by the company.
The incident and his frustration against the employer’s investigation greatly affected the worker’s behaviour in the workplace. He refused to cooperate and had committed alleged misconduct, including secretly recording a meeting with management.
The employer then made formal allegations against him regarding his work behaviour and performance. Following an investigation into such matters, he was summarily dismissed.
The worker then claimed that his dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. He said he was “unfairly terminated for the sole reason that he requested to see the footage of the injury to Tauvey.”
He also said there has been a “systemic cover-up by all levels of Serco management.”
Meanwhile, the employer denied all the allegations and said his dismissal was not unfair.
Worker’s conduct after the dog’s injury
In March, or a month after Tauvey’s injury, an inmate had to be escorted to the Grafton hospital. The employer had concerns about how the trip was handled, so it launched a fact-finding initiative led by a senior officer.
The worker, although involved in the inmate’s trip to the hospital, “refused to cooperate” in the investigation.
Additionally, after several months, the worker “secretly recorded” a confidential meeting with the employer.
HRD previously reported about an employer’s decision to dismiss a worker after he accidentally caused the death of a “beloved pet bird.”
‘Repugnant to the employment relationship’
“This is a case about one man fighting for his dog,” the worker said in his closing argument before the FWC.
Consequently, the commission commented on the worker’s devotion to his job and the animals at the workplace.
“The worker’s care and concern for GPD Tauvey, and all other dogs in his care, is not in dispute. The extent of his feelings led him to disagree in strong terms with the steps taken by Serco management to investigate the cause of the injury to [his dog],” it said in its decision.
“He would not let the issue go and became obsessive about it. This is what ultimately led to the sequence of events which resulted in the termination his employment,” it added.
The commission explained it was necessary to consider whether the employer had a valid reason for the dismissal.
“In order to be ‘valid,’ the reason for the dismissal should be sound, defensible and well founded. It should not be capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced.”
It then applied his test to the worker’s behaviour and performance after the dog’s injury.
“His overall conduct was of such a grave nature as to be repugnant to the employment relationship.”
“He demonstrated that he had no trust and confidence in Serco and he could not be trusted to conduct himself in an appropriate manner in circumstances where he disagreed with reasonable managerial decisions made by Serco.”
“In short, his conduct was incompatible with the employment in which he had been engaged by Serco. His conduct warranted his summary dismissal.”
Thus, the worker’s application for an unfair dismissal claim was rejected.
