Neighbours case - this is the sort of thing driving the desire to change unfair dismissal laws

Neighbours actor Shane Connor today won his unfair dismissal claim against the show’s production company. The court awarded him $196,709 in damagers.

This is a good example of the sort of hoops employers have to go through to get courts (in this case) and the Industrial Relations Commission to find against an employee claiming unfair dismissal. It is the sort of frustrating case that is driving the desire of government and employers to remove unfair dismissal protections from most employees.

The producers took issue with several alleged incidents, including Connor turning up to work with drug hangovers and encouraging other actors to disobey directions.

But Justice Robert Osborn found Connor had not acted unprofessionally or breached his contract as a result of his misbehaviour.

Yeah right! So it is reasonable to turn up to work affected by drugs, to act unprofessionally, to be rude and aggressive towards co-workers and generally act like an arsehole, and the employer is not acting fairly in dismissing you - and this after a series of prior warnings, and giving him the benefit of the doubt in circumstances which even the Court agreed would have warranted summary dismissal. The judgement seems to have turned largely on deficiencies in the documentary evidence that Connor’s employer relied upon to dismiss him - in other words, he carried on like an arsehole, but the court found for him more or less on technicalities.

This sort of judgement ignores the practical realities of the workplace and shows why employers are frustrated by the reliance of courts and tribunals on form over substance in these cases.

Here is the judgement in full if you’re really keen to read it:

Connor v Grundy Television Pty Ltd [2005] VSC 466 (30 November 2005)