The appellant, who employed the respondent union’s member as a prison officer, appealed against the decision of the Industrial Magistrate, who found that the appellant had contravened the Department of Justice Prison Officers’ Industrial Agreement 2020 by denying the respondent member’s paid personal leave.

The respondent union’s member was unwell for a period of several days, during which he attempted to make an appointment at his usual medical centre but could not get an appointment for at least a week. He did not attempt to secure an appointment elsewhere, and instead provided a statutory declaration to support his claim for personal leave. In the original decision, the Industrial Magistrate found that the prison officer had made reasonable attempts to obtain a medical certificate, and that the statutory declaration satisfied the minimum evidentiary requirement for a claim for personal leave.

The appellant’s appeal grounds raised several issues, including that the Industrial Magistrate erred by conflating the prison officer’s efforts to seek a medical appointment for diagnosis and treatment with steps to obtain a medical certificate. The appellant also contended that the officer had not adequately demonstrated that he was unable to obtain a medical certificate, and that the cautions issued by the Industrial Magistrate should not have been issued and had no rational basis.

The Full Bench determined that the Industrial Magistrate erred in conflating the officer’s efforts to seek treatment with his efforts to obtain a medical certificate, and that the officer’s failure to try other medical centres for an appointment were relevant in determining whether he was unable to obtain a certificate. The Full Bench determined that it was unnecessary to deal with the grounds pertaining to the caution issued by the Industrial Magistrate, and, in finding the other grounds of appeal made out, upheld the appeal and quashed the decision of the Industrial Magistrate.    

The decision can be read here.