‘Grave’ is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as ‘important or critical’. This is why I have adopted the practice of requiring the employer to file and serve its evidence first when I issue directions in preparation for a serious misconduct unfair dismissal case (as I did in this case). That said, it may comfortably be accepted that ‘grave’ misconduct is at least equivalent to serious misconduct. Misconduct can be at two different levels: misconduct and serious misconduct. Frequently, for example, the question at issue is whether an employee is disentitled by reason of his or her conduct to a statutory entitlement (eg.

As established by Annetta, the question that needed to be considered was whether there was a “valid reason” in the Selvachandran sense – whether the reason was sound, defensible or well founded. [24] At the relevant time, Mr Skry did not identify specific behaviour about which he was concerned.

THE Office of the Ombudsman has found former Puntod village chief Marvin Beja and two other barangay officials guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct in relation to the 2015 declogging of canal and footpath project in the village.

This becomes a critical issue if the misconduct impacts the employee’s ability to perform his or her job. It was not contested on appeal. Grave Misconduct: 1st Offense – Dismissal: Dishonesty: 1st Offense – Dismissal: Disclosing or misusing confidential or classified information officially known to him by reason of his office and not available to the public, to further his private interests or give undue advantage to anyone or to prejudice the public interest Misconduct vs serious misconduct. In King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd [2000] AIRC 1019, a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (‘AIRC’) said at paras [24], [26], [28] and [29]:‘[24] The question of whether the alleged conduct took place and what it involved is to be determined by the Commission on the basis of the evidence in the proceedings before it. The Commission’s obligation is to determine, for itself and on the basis of the evidence in the proceedings before it, whether the alleged misconduct took place and what it involved. His allegations were non-specific generalities. Serious misconduct. And thirdly, serious misconduct such as act of violence against the management or other employee or riotous or disorderly behaviour in or near the place of employment which, though not directly causing damage is conducive to grave indiscipline, in this case the forfeiture being the entire sum of …

In Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology v Asher ‘[16] In the circumstances of this matter the University purported to terminate Dr Asher’s employment for serious misconduct within the meaning of that term in the University’s enterprise agreement. Apart from s.12 itself, the expression “serious misconduct” is used in only three places in the Act. But these exceptional cases apart, the establishment of important, relevant instances of misconduct, such as dishonesty on the part of an employee like Mr Wells, will normally afford legal justification for summary dismissal.

In circumstances where a reason for termination is based on the conduct of the employee the Commission must also determine whether the alleged conduct took place and what it involved. Statements to that effect should not, however, be understood as directed to the standard of proof. For example, in Rode v Burwood Mitsubishi Print R4471, a Full Bench of the AIRC (including by reference to Selvachandran), discussed the meaning of ‘valid reason’ in the context of the relevant provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The meaning of “serious misconduct” by an employee in Australian employment law is plagued by controversy and uncertainty. At common law:“conduct which in respect of important matters is incompatible with the fulfilment of an employee’s duty, or involves an opposition, or conflict between his interest and his duty to his employer, or impedes the faithful performance of his obligations, or is destructive of the necessary confidence between employer and employee, is a ground of dismissal.