WITH the six-monthly release of our federal politician's expenses claims comes the ritual hunting down of the most profligate spenders.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The last great hunt claimed the scalp of Browyn ‘Chopper’ Bishop, this time around the unnecessarily sibilant Sussan Ley, Steve Ciobo and Peter Dutton have had their name splashed around the headlines.
Although politicians often resign, it poses the question however about what would happen to us mere mortals if we were caught in similar positions? Are politicians being held to the same standards?
The vast majority of Australians are covered by the Fair Work Act, and therefore the Fair Work Commission. An employee may apply to the Commission for unfair dismissal where that dismissal was “harsh, unjust, or unreasonable”.
Ms Ley fell afoul of public opinion when it emerged that she had chartered flights on routes where commercial flights were available and claimed expenses for being on the Gold Coast at the same time as she purchased an investment property.
Whilst making no comment on the particulars of Ms Ley's situation, cases of employee dishonesty have been found to justify summary dismissal. For example, in the case of Woodman v Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd, an employee who allowed a colleague to steal from the candy bar and then lied to management about the incident was summarily dismissed. Despite the fact that the theft was to the value of about $5, the dishonesty of the employee was held to justify summary dismissal.
Mr Dutton has caught attention for claiming around $4,000 for a work dinner in Washington DC (there is no suggestion here he has been involved in any wrongdoing). Included in the bill were two bottles of chardonnay at $80 each, three bottles of Chappellet cabernet sauvignon at $75 each and two bottles of Mark Ryan cabernet sauvignon at $68 each.
Meanwhile, in the case of Selak v Woolworths Ltd an employee was summarily dismissed after it was discovered that he had two beers over lunch with a colleague. This was held to be a valid reason for summary dismissal as it was contrary to express company policy, despite Mr Selak's 20 years of service.
Of course there is always a contrary view. In case of McKerrow v Sarina Leagues Club Incorporated, an employee was dismissed for allegedly misappropriating her employer's funds. The dismissal was held to be invalid because the employee had acted consistently with the objectives of the employers and had a reasonable belief the money would be repaid.
Ultimately politicians do face harsh sanctions. Whilst ordinary people may be dismissed, politicians face weeks of adverse and intrusive publicity followed (if they don't resign first) with the prospect of being summarily dismissed at the next election.
We leave you with another interesting unfair dismissal case. In the case of Lumley v Bremick Pty Ltd Australia t/a Bremick Fasteners an employee was dismissed because they were in a conflict with a colleague that could not be resolved. The dismissal was held to be valid, with the Commission noting that the employer had been put in an "impossible position, irrespective of who was at fault". Malcolm and Tony (and before them Kevin and Julia), we're looking at you – perhaps a call to the Governor General is in order? It might be a long three years.