Anger over return to work plans for firefighter who assaulted his son while on duty
A firefighter who was found guilty of assaulting his son in front of colleagues while on duty was to
2 Comments
Submit a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In a decision of the Fair Work Commission, [2012] FWA 1360, Eleanora Jalea v Sunstate Airlines (Queensland) Pty Ltd T/A Qantas Link (5 March 2012), which was upheld by appeal to the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission in the decision [2012] FWAFB 7267 (11 September 2012), Commissioner Michelle Bissett states in her decision that the following principles must always be applied –
· employers must not apply two sets of rules, and or
· have substantially different tolerances in the workplace.
…………………………………………..
Deputy President Brendan McCarthy in the Fair Work Commission decision [2010] FWA 5156 Mr Duilio Cutrali v Chubb Security Services
Limited (14 July 2010) states –
[66] The force the Applicant exerted was substantial and in my view greater than what was necessary, even if he did feel threatened.
Alternatives to taking the action he did.
[67] I find that the Applicant did have alternatives to his actions. He could have walked away. He could have again pushed Digby away or he could have sought the intervention or assistance of his colleagues to restrain Digby.
Findings regarding violence and self defence
[68] For these reasons I find that:
(i) The conduct of the Applicant was a violent act; and
(ii) That the violent act was not justifiable or excusable by reason that the Applicant was acting in self-defence or had reasonable grounds acting in self-defence.
……………………………
[70] I find that there was valid reason for termination.
…………………………….
[73] The Applicant had almost 12 years of service and there is no evidence of any conduct or performance issues in that period. However given the nature of the reasons for his termination I do not consider that it was harsh. Nor do I consider that it was unreasonable. I also consider that it was just, given the nature of the Respondent’s operations.
During eras in which commonsense prevailed, and I would guess that was forever pre-1975, it was well understood that 17-year-old sons would challenge Dad, as pretty much a rite of passage. Around 30% would actually take a swing. What happened next became lost in the mists of family history, invariably it being decided that lapsed memories were a healthy outcome.
Never, I repeat, never, did I hear of such a normative event reaching Court. That it has now reflects the extent of government interference in the natural institution of Family and the Murdoch Media war to undermine the concept of the Family Unit whenever possible. That this destructiveness has extended to the NT Independent is regrettable.