Unsatisfactory work performanceFinal written warningDismissalCode of Conduct
Tags
Disciplinary hearingFinal written warningDismissal appeal
legislation
Statutes Cited
Respondent's Code of Conduct (contractual instrument, not legislation)
Respondent's Code of Conduct
Respondent's Code of Conduct
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the dismissal penalty was unfair given that appellant had an overseer with full blasting licence in the section","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant's role as shift boss; presence of overseer with blasting licence; final written warning status"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant, employed as a shift boss and supervisor, was dismissed for unsatisfactory work performance after failing to ensure bolter 36 was in a safe place, resulting in damage from falling rocks. At the time of the incident, he was sitting on a final written warning issued in April 2015.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases