The Respondent was dismissed for serious misconduct on 07 November 2017 having worked as a Detainee Services Officer with the Respondent since 11 May 2011. The grounds for serious misconduct set out by the Respondent was the Applicant\u2019s failure to apply herself to her duties and remain vigilant and attentive by sleeping during shift, and using an iPad for personal use. This was in breach of Serco Australia\u2019s Code of Conduct and Governing Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Respondent \u2013 Serco Australia<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Respondent asserted that her dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable on grounds that she did not engage in serious misconduct, and she was not afforded a support person to be in discussion with Serco Australia request for meeting. The Respondent put forward that Serco advised this was a support person was not necessary, which Serco dispute. In addition the Respondent believed she was not provided an opportunity to respond to allegations and defernd herself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Respondent put forward that she was using an iPad whilst a fellow employee was using his iPhone, but in her case to access training through a MY HR application. It was claimed by the Respondent\u2019s co-worker working alongside her that she was playing a game on the iPad, and that later on the co-worker saw the Respondent fall asleep, slumped in her chair with her eyes closed, in breach of Seco’s code of conduct. The Respondent co-worker took \u2018evidence\u2019 of the Respondent sleeping by taking photos on his iPhone. The Respondent agreed that she did nod off and sleep, and as such her ability to respond through the period she was on duty was compromised. Influencing factors put forward was that the nodding off and sleeping was likely due to poor lighting. The Respondent also maintained that she had attempted to log into on-line training , but had difficulty logging in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Respondent\u2019s Co-Worker<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Respondent\u2019s co-worker (who shared the same shift in this instance), under cross-examination, agreed that Serco\u2019s Policies did not permit use of a phone to which he agreed he did have access too, and was also in breach of this policy. The co-worker also agreed to breaching the policy when he walked away to a service station to purchase a meal. The co-worker said he was not spoken to about his breaches by Serco Australia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Escalation of Complaint to Serco Australia Management<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Ultimateley, the use of the iPad and sleeping on shift was reported by the Respondents co-worker to Serco Australia, along with photographic evidence in an email complaint. This was subsequently followed through by Serco\u2019s Facility Operations Manager, who requested a statement from the Respondent\u2019s co-worker to commence and internal ‘fact-finding investigation’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n