dear mr askin , did you ?? , page-10

The two charges were incurred on the 21st of February and the 12th of March.

In your conversations with Mr Heugh did he say when he commissioned this work?

Answer

No such information was given to me. Why dont you ask him yourself ?

The Board had already discussed Mr Heugh's conduct in relation to Mr Shortt on the 17th and gave Mr Heugh a letter on the 21st asking him to withdraw his caution letter and apologise to Mr Shortt.

Answer

They did, however contrary to what the board did, there is such a thing in employment law as procedural fairness and denial of natural justice.

If you had been confronted with a complaint by an employee who you had given a warning to justifiably about the quality of his work and kept it between yourslf and him, and then he complains to the board about you, would you like to have the opportunity to read the complaint, and provide a written response before being informed by the board what the remedy was to be.

Nope! that does not wash in Australia, I have represented many employees in the State and Federal Industrial Relations Commissions and argued those point of law.

See the case of Kylie Sutton and Mayflower Retirement Village [1999] NSWIRComm 451 (18 October 1999)

"Part at least of the investigation required the applicant to respond to unspecified charges, somewhat akin to the old Soviet technique of arresting persons and asking if they had something to confess. The whole tenor of the investigation appeared to be that, once accused, the applicant was considered guilty until such time as she was able to prove her innocence."

Plus I add that the letter provided to JH may well have contained statements that he was not prepared to make, as they may have been admissions on his part to something he strongly denied.

With those events having occured, do you see value in the company still spending money at that point investigating Mr Shortt?

Answer

I do , because he had been promoted to a new and very important position, that required him to deal with International Companies in regards to deals with the company.

It is always incumbent upon a prudent manager to establish that there is nothing to be concerned about in the past history of thw employee, once he was promoted to a new position, it opened the door for a back ground check to be made.

Were it otherwise, then you would have some one employed a long time ago who has been promoted over thw years to a final position of authority, simply because he was the last man standing (in house wages clerk). and no checks on his history done.

Nope it was appropriate to do a check.



CB