The appellant was employed by the respondent as a driving assessor. He was dismissed in December 2024 following a disciplinary process conducted under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA).

In his appeal, the appellant denied engaging in conduct warranting dismissal and contended that the termination of his employment was harsh, oppressive, and unfair. He sought reinstatement and compensation for monetary loss. The respondent maintained that the dismissal was justified.

The appellant did not attend the Commission when the hearing of his appeal commenced.  The Commission was able to contact him by telephone. He told the Commission he had forgotten the hearing and was away on a family holiday. He also indicated that he was content for the Board to determine the appeal in his absence, based on the filed materials.

The Board found that the appeal could not fairly be determined on the written materials alone because the factual allegations relied upon to justify the dismissal were disputed and the matter would require oral evidence and credibility findings. In those circumstances, the Board considered that adjourning and relisting the matter would occasion unfair prejudice to the respondent, which had prepared for a contested three-day hearing. It also considered that any further delay would be inconsistent with the need for dismissal appeals to be dealt with promptly. The Board concluded that the applicant had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case, but had failed to prosecute the appeal, and that the interests of justice required that the appeal be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to s 27(1)(a) of the IR Act. 

 

The decision can be read here.