Telling a ‘porky’ won’t bring home the
bacon.
June 2016 Mr James Green v
Toll Holdings Ltd [2016] FWC 2790
Telling a ‘porky’ won’t bring home the bacon. It may even
cost you the bacon. This is demonstrated in a case
where an employee was
ordered to pay his employer’s costs after running away from his own unfair dismissal hearing when it was
revealed he had falsified a doctor’s report that he had relied on, to hide his drug
use.
The employer, Toll Holdings, dismissed the employee as a Yard Truck Driver after he tested positive for amphetamine
and methamphetamine during routine drug screening at work. After failing the drug screening, the worker went to his
doctor and underwent a second test, which allegedly came back negative.
An application for an unfair dismissal remedy, claiming that his dismissal was unfair because Toll Holdings did not
take into account the results of the second drug test which purportedly showed him to be drug-free. The ostensibly
negative drug test result was to the witness statement, and the employee repeatedly relied on the negative result
during cross-examination.
Unfortunately for the employee, Mr Green, Dr Chaudhry, who administered the second test, gave evidence during the
proceedings that the second test had in fact come back positive. Dr Chaudhry produced the original test result
document, which showed a positive result, and suggested that Mr Green had manipulated the version of the document
he had relied upon to bring the unfair dismissal application.
Shortly after the lie was uncovered, Mr Green gave instructions to discontinue the proceedings, left the courtroom,
and did not return.
The employer subsequently applied for costs. The Commission found that the employee's case was premised on fabricated evidence and a lie given
under oath, and noted that:
"The lie was so central to the unfair dismissal remedy application that when it was uncovered as a lie during the
proceedings, the case crumbled and the [employee], to use the colloquial, “did a runner” leaving his representative
to clean up the mess and discontinue the proceeding."
The Commission ordered that the employee pay the employer's full costs (i.e. 'indemnity costs') of
$18,618.31.
See more:-
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0bc6f78e-5ee2-480a-a0a5-9e2afb138262
|