Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines)

[2014] QIRC 215

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:  

Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2014] QIRC 215

PARTIES:  

Wanninayake, Dushanthi
(Applicant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines)
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

TD/2013/109

PROCEEDING:

Application for Reinstatement

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2014

HEARING DATES: 

30 June 2014 - 2 July 2014
6 August 2014 -  Respondent's Written Submissions
20 August 2014 - Applicant's Written Submissions
26 August 2014 -  Respondent's Written Submissions in Reply

MEMBER:

Deputy President Kaufman

ORDERS    :

1.      The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW - APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT - termination of employment - credit - failure to comply with directions - valid reason

CASES:

Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 73, s 74, s 77.

APPEARANCES:

Ms D. Wanninayake, in person, the Applicant.

Mr. J. Merrell, Counsel instructed by Crown Law for the State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines), the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

[1]Ms Dushanthi Wanninayake contends that the termination of her employment by the State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) was unfair and has applied to the commission for relief by way of reinstatement.

[2]By letter dated 7 November 2011, pursuant to s 187(1)(c) and (d) of the Public Service Act 2008 (PS Act) the department dismissed the applicant for allegedly:

(a)being absent from duty without approved leave and without reasonable excuse; and 

(b)contravening, without reasonable excuse, a direction given to her as a public service employee by a responsible person.

[3]In summary, the department found that the applicant had failed to provide a progress report for a project that she had been working on despite having been requested to do so by an executive director at a meeting held on 14 May 2013 and despite a number of follow up requests subsequently having been made by her director.  The second finding was that the applicant had been absent from her approved workplace without approval from 19 August 2013 until the date of the allegation, 30 August 2013, at which time her unauthorized absence was continuing.

A chronology of relevant events

[4]During the cross-examination of the applicant, Mr J. Merrell, of counsel, who appeared for the department, provided a chronology of what the respondent considered to be the relevant events pertaining to her dismissal.  That chronology provides a useful summary of the background that led to the termination of the applicant's employment.  The applicant in her written submissions also provided a chronology of the events from her perspective, contending that the respondent's chronology does not represent an accurate account of the events.

[5]I have consolidated both chronologies into a table because they demonstrate the fraught relations between the applicant and the department.  The consolidated table is annexed to this decision.

[6]By way of illustration, the respondent's chronology indicates that the applicant was moved from the analytical laboratory in May 2011, allegedly because the principal scientist of that laboratory, Mr Patrick Lynch, complained that she would not take instruction or direction from him.  Whilst the applicant, in her chronology, accepts that she was temporarily moved she denies that it was for the reasons attributed by the department.  She refers to the evidence of Paul Harrison, the Deputy Director-General for Mines Safety and Health of the department. Mr Harrison swore an affidavit upon which the applicant chose not to cross-examine. In late 2010, Mr Harrison had a conversation with Darren Brady, the former director of Director the Occupational Hygiene, Environment and Chemistry Centre (OHECC). In the course of that conversation Mr Brady advised him of various matters concerning the applicant's conduct. The evidence of Mr Harrison, Mr Winter, Ms Hortle and Mr Gollan disclose that the applicant was reluctant to take direction, to cooperate with her peers and refused to perform tasks that she felt were beneath her classification level.[1] From the complaints it was apparent that the applicant was an argumentative person. In her chronology, the applicant referred to the affidavit of Mr Harrison to suggest that the reason for her move was not because Mr Lynch had complained that she would not take instructions or directions from him. It is clear from Mr Harrison's affidavit that he had been informed by Mr Lynch's superior that this was indeed Mr Lynch's complaint.  Whilst Mr Harrison's affidavit is not proof of the fact that the applicant refused to take direction from Mr Lynch, it does support the department's contention that this was the reason that she was moved from the OHECC. Although the applicant correctly states that Mr Harrison did not consider the move appropriate, the applicant misrepresents the position by stating that Mr Harrison considered that the perceived performance issues should have been addressed directly with her. In the email to which Mr Harrison referred, he simply indicated that he did not consider it appropriate that the applicant should be moved from her department on a permanent basis as a way to deal with the conflict with her superior.

[1] T 2-53 / 27-45.

[7]That the applicant was a very difficult person with whom to deal and to manage is further confirmed by Mr Harrison at paragraphs 36 to 45 of his affidavit where he details the lengths he had to go to in order to have the applicant work on an existing project involving developing methods of analysis of chemicals in the air. The manner in which the applicant quibbles with the department's characterization of this event is demonstrated at paragraph 4 of her chronology.

[8]Mr Harrison described this project as a one person project which did not require a project manager or assistants. The applicant did not accept this was the case and had sought assistance for the performance of menial tasks.[2]

[2] T2 – 53, 54.

[9]The applicant's comments in her chronology and indeed in her evidence, are replete with self-justification and nitpicking, which behaviour appears to me to be consistent with the general tenor of her behaviour as described by the witnesses for the department. Having regard to the manner in which the applicant gave her evidence in chief and responded to questions in cross-examination, as well as from me, I am satisfied that the applicant's behavioural issues, of  which the Department complained, are generally well founded.

[10]Although the chronologies set out a good deal of the history, it is not necessary that I make specific findings in relation to these issues as they are the background to the two allegations that led to the termination of the applicant's employment.

The Applicant failed to follow directions

[11]The gravamen of this allegation is that the applicant, despite many requests, failed to provide a progress report in relation to the project to her director, Matthew Winter. This allegation was comprehensively addressed in the show cause letter that Mr Harrison wrote to the applicant on 30 August 2013.[3]

[3] Exhibit R5, attachment 14.

[12]In a nutshell the position was that the project was running behind schedule, despite the deadline for its completion having been extended.  Mr Winter had sought progress reports that would particularly indicate matters that required to be completed and the dates upon which it was expected that that would occur. The applicant, over some considerable period of time, provided information to Mr Winter that did not include the details that he had sought. Before me she maintained that the reports that she provided to Mr Winter had been her own personal notes and had not been prepared as official reports.[4]

[4] T1 – 105.

[13]In his affidavit Mr Winter detailed his concerns with the progress of the project, as well as his attempts to help obtain the relevant details from the applicant.[5]  I find Mr Winter to be a witness of credit and accept his version of the events. Where his evidence conflicts with that of the appellant I prefer Mr Winter's evidence. I generally prefer the evidence of the witnesses for the respondent where it is in conflict with that of the applicant, whom I consider to be manipulative and disingenuous.  In her written submissions the applicant states that there are relatively few matters where there is a direct conflict between her evidence and the evidence of the department's witnesses. She suggests that it is a case of different interpretation of events. I do not agree. The events related by Mr Winter to which I have referred above do not suggest that the characterization of the conduct of the applicant was open to a different interpretation to that of Mr Winter. The applicant's analysis of Mr Winter's evidence to support her submission that her evidence should be believed over his, exemplifies her inability to separate the minutiae from the substance.

[5] Exhibit R2, paragraphs 31 to 62.

[14]I am satisfied that the applicant unreasonably failed to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from her superiors and that the first allegation is made out.

The Applicant was absent from the workplace without authorization

[15]The difficulties that Mr Winter was having in obtaining the required progress reports from the applicant led to the issue being elevated to director level when Dr Tilman Rasche, acting executive director, asked about the progress of the project. This resulted in a meeting on 23 July 2013 involving the applicant, Mr Winter and Ms Estrella Hortle, a business support manager with the department.  Mr Winter explained that the applicant had repeatedly refused to follow his direction that she provide progress report number 26 and informed her that he had prepared a formal letter requesting that she provide this information to him. The applicant declined to accept the letter albeit Ms Hortle explained that it was not a disciplinary letter. The applicant subsequently emailed to Ms Hortle and Mr Winter a copy of progress report number 26 on that day. Mr Winter alleged that the report was still deficient.

[16]Dr Rasche then convened a meeting for 15 August 2013 at which the applicant, Dr Rasche, Mr Winter, Mr David Gollan, Principal Consultant of the Employee Relations Unit, and Ms Hortle were present. As the applicant was unwell, the meeting was rescheduled for 16 August 2013. At the meeting Mr Gollan informed the applicant that a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was to be implemented as a result of her failure to follow Mr Winter's directions in relation to the provision of progress reports. A meeting was to be scheduled for 20 August 2013 so that a PIP could be developed for the applicant.[6]

[6] Exhibit R3, affidavit of Ms Hortle, paragraphs 21to 36.

[17]On 19 August 2013 Ms Annette Platzer, an administration officer, emailed Mr Winter informing him that the applicant had asked her to let him know that the applicant would not be in the office that day. The applicant also emailed Mr Gollan informing him that she would not be at work that day. No reason was given. The applicant also emailed Ms Hortle on 19 August 2013 advising her that she was:

“… unable to attend duties under current circumstances as it is not safe and therefore I require Simtars managements (sic) careful attention especially in the following areas;

1.   Withdraw all the accusations made against me in the letter dated 23 July 2013 as per my reply to the letter dated 25 July 2013.

2.   The work place has to be free from unnecessary public/unacceptable interruptions in order to perform duties professionally, safely, efficiently and cost effectively with dignity and respect.

3.   Withdraw all the accusations and allegations made against me in relation to the Simtar's financial losses.

As a responsible citizen I wish to work from home until confirmation from the above requests is received. Waiting for your reply...”

As Ms Hortle was not at work on that day she asked the applicant to contact her manager, Mr Winter, to inform him of her absence.

[18]On 20 August 2013 Ms Hortle spoke with the applicant advising her that she should speak to Mr Winter about working from home. During that conversation the applicant told Ms Hortle that if her working from home was not approved, she would be away sick, that she would not to return to the office as she feels unsafe, that she wanted the allegations against her retracted before she returned to work, that she would not participate in the PIP as no one had the capacity to improve her performance and that she would only sign an agreement with Mr Harrison.[7]

[7] Exhibit R3, paragraph 42.

[19]No approval for the applicant to work from home was forthcoming but she continued to work in that manner, without contacting Mr Winter, until 30 August 2013.[8]  The sequence of events is detailed in the affidavit of Mr Gollan, who informed her by email as early as 20 August 2013 that she was absent from work without approval and needed to contact her manager urgently.  The applicant went on approved leave of two weeks from 2 September 2013. She returned to work on 18 September 2013 and sent an email to Mr Winter wherein she applied for sick leave for the period 19 August to 2 September 2013. To her leave application she attached a medical certificate dated 19 August 2013 from her general practitioner stating that she had examined the applicant that day and that in her opinion "she will be unfit for her normal work from 19 August 2013 to 23 August 2013 inclusive." A second medical certificate dated 26 August 2013 to the same effect for the period 26 August 2013 to 2 September 2013 was also provided.

[8] Exhibit R3, paragraphs 37 to 50; Exhibit R2, paragraph 94.

[20]It is clear, as the department contends, that no approval was given to the applicant to work from home. It is not contested that she worked from home during the period 19 to 30 August 2013. It is readily apparent that she was capable of performing and did perform, at least part of, her normal duties. In my view, the retrospective application for sick leave did not convert the unapproved leave into approved leave. That the department did not retrospectively approve her sick leave, despite the doctor's certificates, is not surprising in the circumstances. I infer that the applicant took umbrage at the attempted imposition of a PIP and, as she indicated to Ms Hortle, she decided that she would work from home until she received an outcome that was satisfactory to her.

[21]The allegation that the applicant had been absent from her workplace without approved leave or without approval from Monday, 19 August 2013 to Friday, 30 August 2013 is made out.

Conclusion

[22]A dismissal is unfair if it is harsh, unjust or unreasonable or for an invalid reason. An invalid reason includes temporary absence from work because of illness or injury.

[23]In deciding whether the applicant's dismissal was harsh unjust or unreasonable I must consider whether she was notified of the reason for dismissal and, given that the dismissal related to her conduct or performance, whether she had been warned about her conduct or performance and given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her.

[24]It is clear that the applicant was notified of the reason for her dismissal and that it related to her conduct. The letter of termination signed by Mr Harrison and dated 7 November 2013 comprehensively details the reasons for dismissal.

[25]The evidence is also clear that the applicant had previously been warned about the conduct and performance issues that led to her dismissal and that she had been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The requests for progress reports and the meetings relating to the applicant's failure to provide them sounded a clear warning that her performance and conduct were unacceptable. The show cause letter of 30 August 2013 set out with significant particularity the allegations against her and provided her with an opportunity to respond to them. This she did in her email of 8 October 2013. 

[26]Mr Harrison considered the applicant's response but nevertheless determined that in the circumstances termination of employment was appropriate.

[27]I agree that the conduct of the applicant in relation to the two matters that were relied on by the Department in dismissing her warranted the termination of her employment. Each founded a valid reason for termination.

[28]The applicant also contends that the dismissal was unfair because it was for an invalid reason being that she was temporarily absent from work because of illness. It is apparent from my narration of the circumstances surrounding her absence from work that this contention cannot be made out.

[29]The dismissal was not unfair. The application for reinstatement must be dismissed.

[30]Order accordingly.

Annexure  – Consolidated Chronology

No.	Date	Applicant's description of Event	Respondent's description of Event.	Applicant's comments	Respondent's Reference
1.	10 May 2010	The applicant commences employed (sic) in the safety in Mines Testing and Research Station (SIMTARS) in what was then the department of employment and economic development and innovation now the department of Natural resources and mines(the Department) as a Senior Chemist- Classification PO4 The applicants Duties as Senior chemist - Classification PO4, In Simtars are set out in the role description for that position.	The Applicant commences employed (sic) in the SIMTARS in what was then the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, now the Department, as a Senior Chemist – Classification PO4. The Applicant's duties as a Senior Chemist – Classification P04 in SIMTARS are set out in the role description for that position.	A1-DMW54 and Paragraph 1-4. Agreed.	Attachment “A” to the Applicant's application for reinstatement filed 27 November 2013 (the Applicant's application) Exhibit “PKH-1” to Exhibit R5
2.	May 2011	The applicant is moved from working in the analytical laboratories in the occupational health environment and chemistry centre (OHECC)of Simtars because the Principle Scientist of the Analytical laboratory Mr Patrick Lynch complained the applicant will not take instructions or directions from him.	The Applicant is removed from working in the Analytical Laboratory in the Occupational Health Environment and Chemical Centre (OHECC) of SIMTARS because the Principal Scientist of the Analytical Laboratory, Mr Patrick Lynch, complained that the Applicant will not take instruction or direction from him.	A1-DMW72 and Paragraph 5&6, and 29 to 33. I agree that I was temporarily moved to QMU to assist Mr Benson for implementation of Mackay QMS and internal auditing, but not for the reason given by the respondent in this chronology. I refer to the evidence of Mr Harrison indicating that he did not consider this move appropriate and that he considered that perceived performance issues should have been addressed directly with me.	Paragraphs 29 and 33 of Exhibit R5
3.	In or about November 2011	Mr Paul Harrison Exe Director of Simtars (Mr Harrison) decides to return the applicant to the analytical laboratory of OHECC at Simtars	Mr Harrison, Executive Director of SIMTARS decides to return the Applicant to the Analytical Laboratory of OHECC at SIMTARS.	Agreed. The allocated project was a continuous unsuccessful attempts by other senior chemists / scientists.	Paragraph 41 of Exhibit R5
4.	15 November 2011	The applicant is assigned by Mr Harrison to finalise existing projects which amongst other projects involved developing methods of analysis chemicals in the air such as Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes and other Volatile Organic Compounds (the Project)	The Applicant is assigned by Mr Harrison to finalise existing projects which, amongst other projects, involved developing methods of analysing chemicals in the air such as Benzene Toluene, Elthybenzen, Xylene and other Volatile Organic Compounds (the Project).	A1- paragraph 34 I note that Mr Harrison did not return me to a mainstream role within the ordinary management structure, despite his earlier views that sidelining me was inappropriate and perceived performance issues should be addressed directly with the me. I agree that the relevant project had been identified as an existing project, however I state that no substantial work had been done on that project, as is evidenced by the fact that the first project task as later recorded in my Individual Performance Plan is a literature review.	Paragraphs 42 and 43 of Exhibit R5
5.	10 February 2012	An individual performance plan (IPP) is entered into between the applicant an Mr Andrew Martin the acting director of OHECC in respect of the applicant's return to the analytical laboratory. The IPP set the date for completion of	An Individual Performance Plan (IPP) is entered into between the Applicant and Mr Andrew Martin, the Acting Director of OHECC, in respect of the Applicant's return to the Analytical Laboratory. The IPP sets the date for completion of the Project at the end of September 2012.	A1- paragraph 7 & 35 to 37 and DMW89 A2 paragraph 59 &60. I note that the IPP is the only document produced by the Respondent that sets out the.	Paragraph 44 of Exhibit R5 and Exhibit “PKH-6” to Exhibit R5
6.	23 April 2012	Mr Andre DeKock (Mr DeKock) becomes the acting director of OHECC	Mr Andre De Kock (Mr De Kock) becomes the Acting Director of OHECC.	Agree.	Paragraph 46 of Exhibit R5
7.	March 2013	Mr Matthew Winter (Mr Winter ) is appointed to the position of Director of OHECC at Simtars in place of Mr DeKock	Mr Winter is appointed to the position of Director of OHECC at SIMTARS, in place of Mr De Kock.	Agree.	Paragraph 8 of Exhibit R2
8.	9 April 2013	Meeting between the applicant, Mr DeKock and Mr Winter to discuss; (a) The status of the project (b) How the project would be managed The applicant and Mr Winter agreed the project will be completed by Mat (sic) 2013. The applicant provides Mr Winter with progress report #23 in relation to the project.	Meeting between the Applicant, Mr De Kock and Mr Winter to discuss: (a)   the status of the Project; and (b)   how the Project would be managed. The Applicant and Mr Winter agree that the Project will be completed by May 2013. The Applicant provides Mr Winter with progress report #23 in relation to the Project.	Progress meeting 23 1st meeting with Mr Winter A1- paragraph 64 & 65 Prior to this meeting on 20 March 2013, I prepared a report for the new manager on the project including an analysis of benefits, strengths and limitations (A1 -DMW46) I deny that there was an agreement that the project would be completed by May 2013 (refer email from Mr Winter to me of 7 May, A1- DMW93)	Paragraphs 18 to 24 of Exhibit R2
9.	30 April 2013	The applicant emails Mr Winter progress report #24 but which did not set out the outstanding tasks for completion of the project and the estimated completion dates for those tasks.	The Applicant emails Mr Winter progress report #24, but which did not set out the outstanding tasks for completion of the Project and the estimated completion dates for those tasks.	Progress meeting 24- cancelled A1- DMW39 Progress report #24 was in the same format as all reporting on the project to that date. At this time Mr Winter had not made a clear request for any other reporting.	Paragraph 67(a) of Exhibit R2
10.	2 May 2013	Mr Winter meets with the applicant regarding the failure of the applicant to provide draft methodologies or testing procedures in respect of the project. Mr Winter gives the applicant a direction that at the next progress meeting the applicant is provided him with the outstanding tasks for the project and estimated completion dates for those tasks in bullet point form.(The bullet point information)	Mr Winter meets with the Applicant regarding the failure of the Applicant to provide draft methodologies or testing procedures in respect of the Project. Mr Winter gives the Applicant a direction that at the next progress meeting the Applicant is to provide him with the outstanding tasks for the Project and estimated completion dates for those tasks in bullet point form (the bullet point information).	Progress meeting 24 A1- DMW39 DMW175-2 & T2 page 53 The purpose of the meeting was not to discuss my failure to provide required reports. It was a reschedule of the regular meeting due to be held on 1 May 2013. The outcome of this meeting, including the requirement for bullet point information, was confirmed by email to me dated 2 & 7 May 2013. (A1 DMW39).	Paragraphs 35 to 38 of Exhibit R2
11.	6 May 2013	Further meeting between Mr Winter and the applicant during which Mr Winter re set the date for completion of the project to the end of June 2013 because the applicant indicated that she would not be able to complete the project by that time The applicant did not provide Mr Winter with the bullet point information at this meeting	Further meeting between Mr Winter and the Applicant during which Mr Winter resets the date for completion of the Project to the end of June 2013 because the Applicant indicated that she would not be able to complete the Project by that time. The Applicant did not provide Mr Winter with the bullet point information at this meeting.	No meeting- No Evidence No such meeting occurred on 6 May. The email from Mr Winter dated 7 May refers to the meeting of 2 May, and not to a meeting on 6 May. (A1 paragraph 69 and DMW39, A2 paragraph 69) There is evidence that I requested a meeting by email on 6 May (A1DMW 93) and this request was refused in Mr Winter's email to me of 7 May (A1 DMW 39) I provided Mr Winter with the bullet point information by email dated 10 May, A1 DMW44 and A2-DMW174.	Paragraphs 41 to 45 of Exhibit R2
12.	14 May 2013	Meeting between the applicant Mr DeKock, Mr Winter and the acting Director of Simtars Dr Tillman Rasche (Dr Rasche). The applicant indicated the project would be completed until end of August 2013. Dr Rasche agrees to extend the date for completion of the project to the end of August 2013 on the basis that applicant provided; (a) A detail plan with how the work will be achieved; and (b) A number of reasonable milestones demonstrating those achievements.	Meeting between the Applicant, Mr De Kock, Mr Winter and the Acting Director of SIMTARS, Dr Tilman Rasche (Dr Rasche). The Applicant indicates that the Project would not be completed until the end of August 2013. Dr Rasche agrees to extend the date for completion of the Project to the end of August 2013 on the basis that Applicant provides: (a)   a detailed plan on how the work will be achieved; and (b)   a number of reasonable milestones demonstrating those achievements.	Meeting with ED This meeting was held at my request to discuss the completion date as is evident from my email of 6 May (A1 DMW 93). I wished to discuss the fact that I could not complete the project by July with the existing resources I had. Mr Winter wanted to outsource the project to an external contractor and move me to the ICP lab to use me as a helping had (sic) for junior chemists. I also requested that the project be included in my performance development plan so that I would have clarity about what was required of me. Dr Rasche came with the milestones, which I believed was the same as the requirement for dot points by Mr Winter, and which I had already provided on 10 May. A1-DMW44 I was told at this meeting that failure to complete the project by this time would result in disciplinary action being taken against me A1-DMW36 page 2, 3rd last paragraph. I received an email from Dr Rasche on 31 May to clarify his request. This was after my next meeting with Mr Winter. (A1- paragraph 67 & 68 , 70 and DMW36 and DMW38 DMW 54).	Paragraphs 46 and 48 of Exhibit R2
13.	30 May 2013	Progress meeting between the applicant and Mr Winter. No Progress report provide by the applicant to Mr Winter during that meeting. Progress report #25 was email to the applicant about this time which did not contained the outstanding tasks for completion of the projector the estimated dates for completion of those tasks.	Progress meeting between the Applicant and Mr Winter. No progress report provided by the Applicant to Mr Winter during that meeting. Progress report #25 was emailed to Mr Winter about this time which did not contain the outstanding tasks for completion of the Project or the estimated dates for completion of those tasks.	Progress meeting 25 A1 paragraph 71, DMW49 report 25 I sent progress report #25 electronically to Mr Winter with the meeting notice, so it was available to him before the meeting. (R2 MGW5) Progress report 25 page 2 under “Comments” column 5th paragraph “Advised to submit work to be carryout in bullet form to assess required assistance” and “Status” columns 6th paragraph “Submitted – completed” evidenced submission of bullet point report. On 4 June-Formal report to the managers A1-DMW42 & email to Mr Harrison DMW23 last page.	Paragraphs 49 to 50 and 67(b) of Exhibit R2
14.	8 July 2013	Further meeting between the applicant and Mr Winter to discuss progress of the project. No written progress report is provided by the applicant at that meeting which should have been progress report #26.	Further meeting between the Applicant and Mr Winter to discuss the progress of the Project. No written progress report is provided by the Applicant at that meeting, which should have been progress report #26.	Progress meeting 26 A1 paragraph 71 & 73 and DMW35 The meeting held on 8 July was an unscheduled one held on short notice because Mr Winter was suddenly available. I had not yet prepared progress report #26. A1 paragraph 71 & 73 and DMW35 A2 paragraph 77(b).	Paragraphs 51 and 52 of Exhibit R2
15.	9 July 2013	Mr Winter sends an email to the applicant requiring the information sought at the meeting on 8 July 2013. Progress report 26 is not provided by the applicant	Mr Winter sends an email to the Applicant requiring the information sought at the meeting on 8 July 2013. Progress report #26 is not provided by the Applicant.	Refer to DMW26.	Exhibit “MGW8” to Exhibit R2 Paragraph 54 of Exhibit R2
16.	23 July 2013	Meeting between Mr Winter, the applicant and Ms Estrella Hortel Business support manager of Simtars (Ms Hortel) regarding the applicant's failure to provide progress report #26. Ms Hortel is present at the applicant's requirement. At this meeting Mr Winter attempts to provide the applicant with a formal letter requesting progress report 26 (the formal request letter) . the applicant does not accept the formal request letter.	Meeting between Mr Winter, the Applicant and Ms Hortle, Business Support Manager of SIMTARS, regarding the Applicant's failure to provide progress report #26. Ms Hortle is present at the Applicant's requirement. At this meeting Mr Winter attempts to provide the Applicant with a formal letter requesting progress report #26 (the formal request letter). The Applicant does not accept the formal request letter.	Unplanned unknown meeting A1 paragraph 72 to 75 A2 paragraph 73 and 77( c) DMW 27 & DMW34 This was an unplanned meeting scheduled while Mr Winter was Acting Executive Director. This was the first time I was questioned about a report. Ms Hortle present. This is the first time I was questioned about a report and it was in a formal letter.	Paragraphs 55 to 57 of Exhibit R2 and Exhibit “MGW9” to Exhibit R2
17.	23 July 2013	After the meeting on 23 July 2013, the applicant provides progress report#26 which, in Mr Winter's opinion is different as it does not contain the outstanding tasks for the project to be completed and the relevant milestone dates for the completion of those tasks.	After the meeting on 23 July 2013, the Applicant provides progress report #26 which, in Mr Winter's opinion, is deficient as it does not contain the outstanding tasks for the Project to be completed and the relevant milestone dates for the completion of those tasks.	A1 paragraph 72 to 74 DMW27 and DMW29 I agreed that I submitted report #26 . I also note that report 26 was briefer than usual because of the large workload at that stage of the project (VOC Validation).	Exhibit “MGW11” to Exhibit R2 and Paragraphs 58 and 60 of Exhibit R2
18.	23 July 2013	Mr Winter emails to the applicant a copy of the formal request letter.	Mr Winter emails to the Applicant a copy of the formal request letter.	A1-DMW28. Agreed.	Paragraph 59 of Exhibit R2 and Exhibit “MGW12” to Exhibit R2
19.	25 July 2013	The applicant forwards Mr Winter a letter alleging that the formal request letter was for an invalid and unlawful reason, that the progress reports were prepared for her own interests and that the “allegations” should be withdrawn.	The Applicant forwards Mr Winter a letter alleging that the formal request letter was for an invalid and unlawful reason, that the progress reports were prepared for her own interest and that the “allegations” should be withdrawn.	A1- DMW26 Paragraph 70 & 73 T2 page 53 line 20-35 I had provided Mr Winter with the dot point report and with the numbered reports. I did not understand the requests for further reports. I was submitting reports in the same format I had done since the beginning of the project. I had requested assistance with the project and been denied I had been told that if the project was not finished by the end of August I would face disciplinary action. I was requesting an opportunity to focus on the completion of the project in a peaceful atmosphere I sent further request to Mr Harrison for urgent meeting ( refer to A3).	Exhibit “MGW13” to Exhibit R2 and paragraph 61 of Exhibit R2
20.	8 August 2013	By email Mr Winter the applicant provides a progress report in a specific format as set out in that email to Dr Rasche by 12 August 2013. The format prescribed was ; (a) Project start date; (b) The tasks completed including the start and finish dates of those tasks; and (c) The tasks to be completed setting out participated completion dates. (the 12 August request)	By email, Mr Winter requests the Applicant provide a progress report in a specific format, as set out in that email, to Dr Rasche by 12 August 2013. The format prescribed was: (a)   the Project start date; (b)   the tasks completed including the start and finishing date of those tasks; and (c)   the tasks to be completed setting out participated (sic) completion date (the 12 August request).	I acknowledge that I received this request, which was the first time that it was clear to me what was being required. I considered that this request was onerous in view of the stage of the project (~3 weeks to complete) and the fact that I had been told I would face disciplinary action if the project was not completed by the due date. To prepare such a report would require considerable time away from the project itself, which I could not afford it (sic) the project was to be completed on time. A1-DMW25 A2- paragraph 70 to 72.	Exhibit “MGW18” to Exhibit R2
21.	9 August 2013	The applicant emails Mr Winter saying that the 12 August request is not clear.	The Applicant emails Mr Winter saying that the 12 August request is not clear.	R5-PKH16 Attachment 22 A2- paragraph 70 to 72 I sought clarification because the milestones that the managers were requiring were not consistent with the way in which I had been conducting the project. No formal project management training given and was unsure what was required of me.	Exhibit “MGW19” to Exhibit R2
22.	9 August 2013	Mr Winter emails the applicant and specifies again what is required in respect of the 12 August request.	Mr Winter emails the Applicant and specifies again what is required in respect of the 12 August request.	A1-DMW23, A2 paragraph 72 I again emailed Mr Harrison seeking guidance and assistance to resolve the issues I was having.	Exhibit “MGW20” to Exhibit R2
23.	12 August 2013	The applicant does not provide information to Dr Rasche as requested in the 12 August request.	The Applicant does not provide information to Dr Rasche as requested in the 12 August request.	I was on sick leave- R5-PKH16 Attachment 28 page 2 I was unable to provide the report as required by 12 August. However, I outlined the timelines according to my plan refer to email R5-PKH16 Attachment 22 It required me to list all completed tasks as well as outstanding tasks which was a large job going through history. I was facing threat of disciplinary action if the project was not completed within 3 weeks. Management tasks of this nature were not usually required of a PO4 chemist, and I had no staff assistance refer to DMW175-2.	Paragraph 77 of Exhibit R2
24.	16 August 2013	Meeting between Dr Rasche, Mr Winter, Ms Hortel, Mr David Gollan, Principal Consultant Employee Relations Unit of the Department (Mr Gollan) to discuss placing the applicant on a performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The applicant is directed to attend a meeting on 20 Aug 2013 to participate in the development of PIP.	Meeting between Dr Rasche, Mr Winter, Ms Hortle and Mr Gollan, Principal Consultant of the Employee Relations Unit of the Department to discuss placing the Applicant on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The Applicant is directed to attend a meeting on 20 August 2013 to participate in the development of a PIP.	I was on sick leave on 15 Aug 13 R5-PKH16 Attachment 28 page 4 This meeting was rescheduled to cover the meeting on 15 Aug refer to DMW33-c & d ad DMW23 I thought that this meeting was being held because of my request to Mr Harrison refer to A3. I only became aware of the purpose of the meeting as it unfolded. I did not commit to entering into a PIP at that meeting because I wanted time to consider it and seek advice, A1 paragraph 77 to 81 A2 paragraph 77 to 79 & 97	Paragraphs 78 to 81 of Exhibit R2, paragraphs 30 to 36 of Exhibit R3 and paragraphs 15 to 30 of Exhibit R4
25.	19 August 2013	The applicant does not to present for work. Ms Hortel asks the applicant to inform Mr Winter of her absence.	The Applicant does not present for work. Ms Hortle asks the Applicant to inform Mr Winter of her absence.	I was on sick leave until 2 Sept. R5-PKH16 Attachment 28 page 6 A1-DMW20 to DMW22, Paragraph 84 I had already had some sick days because of the stress that I was under. After the meeting on 16 August my stress condition worsened, and I was not able to attend the office on the following Monday. In addition to the fact that I was not well enough to attend at the office, I was not well enough to drive from my home to the office. I did inform the respondent, by phone to Simtars reception, and by email to Ms Hortel, of my absence	Paragraph 37 of Exhibit R3
26.	19 August 2013	The applicant emails Ms Hortle informing her that she requests permission to work from home until; (a) All accusations made against her in the letter dated 23 July 2013 were withdrawn; (b) The workplace was free from unnecessary/unacceptable interruptions in order for her to perform her duties professionally, safely, efficiently and cost effectively with dignity and respect; and (c) All accusations and allegations made against her in relation to Simtars financial losses are withdrawn.	The Applicant emails Ms Hortle informing her that she requests permission to work from home until: (a)   all accusations made against her in the letter dated 23 July 2013 were withdrawn; (b)   the workplace was free from unnecessary/unacceptable interruptions in order for her to perform her duties professionally, safely, efficiently and cost effectively with dignity and respect; and (a)   (c) (sic) all accusations and allegations made against her in relation to SIMTARS financial losses are withdrawn.	Communicated my absence to Simtars via emails and phone calls. A1-DMW20 to DMW22 The laboratory component of the project had finished. I considered that I could continue to work on the project from home, despite, my illness to attempt to complete the project by the required time. I was not well enough to drive from my home to the office.

27.	19 August 2013	Mr Winter sends as email to the applicant informing her that he acknowledges her absence but that he was yet to consider her request as set out in her email to Ms Hortle on 19 Aug 2013 to work from home.	Mr Winter sends an email to the Applicant informing her that he acknowledges her absence but that he was yet to consider her request, as set out in her email to Ms Hortle on 19 August 2013, to work from home.	A1-DMW21 A2 paragraph 81 to 83 Agreed	Exhibit “MGW23” to Exhibit R2 and paragraph 84 to Exhibit R2
28.	20 August 2013	The applicant speaks with Ms Hortle by telephone during which Ms Hortel advised the applicant that she should speak to Mr Winter about working from home as he was her direct manager. During that same conversation the applicant informs Ms Hortle that; (a) If her work from home was not approved she would be away sick; (b) She would not return to the office as she feels unsafe; (c) She wants the allegations against her retracted before she return to work; (d) She would not participate in the PIP as no one had the capacity to improve her performance; (e) She would only sign an agreement with Mr Harrison at that time the acting deputy director general of the DNRM.	The Applicant speaks with Ms Hortle by telephone during which Ms Hortle advised the Applicant that she should speak to Mr Winter about working from home as he was her direct manager. During that same conversation, the Applicant informed Ms Hortle that: (a)   if her working from home was not approved, she would be away sick; (b)   she would not return to the office as she feels unsafe; (c)   she wanted the allegations against her retracted before she returned to work; (d)   she would not participate in the PIP as no one had the capacity to improve her performance; and (e)   she would only sign an agreement with Mr Harrison, at that time, the Acting Deputy Director General of the Department.	A1- DMW19 to DMW22 A2- DMW147-5 At this time I was suffering from stress and I was confused and worried about my work situation. I did not feel that I could speak with Mr Winter directly due to the fear of unreasonable / unwarranted accusations. However, I was committed to doing whatever I could to finish the project. I had a lengthy conversation with Ms Hortle, and while I agree that these points summarise the issues in the conversation, they do not give a full picture of our conversation.	Paragraph 42 of Exhibit R3
29.	19 August 2013 to 30 August 2013	The applicant was absent from work without approval. During this time the applicant made no contact with Mr Winter. Mr Winter did not approve any leave for the applicant for this period.	The Applicant was absent from work without approval. During this time the Applicant made no contact with Mr Winter. Mr Winter did not approve any leave for the Applicant for this period.	A1- DMW15 & DMW16, DMW20 to DMW22 paragraph 84 to 85 I agree that I was absent from work because of illness. I provided medical certificates and sought approval for this absence on my return from work as is the usual practice for sick leave. I was able to complete work on the project from home, and I emailed the final work for the project to Mr Harrison and Dr Rasche on 28 August 2013.	Paragraph 94 to Exhibit R2
30.	30 August 2013	The applicant was given a Shaw Cause letter by Mr Harrison in relation to the allegations that she contravened, without a reasonable excuse, directions provided to her to provide progress reports for the project and that she was absent from work without approved leave or without approval from 19 Aug 2013 and as at 30 Aug 2013.	The Applicant is given a show cause letter by Mr Harrison in relation to the allegations that she contravened, without a reasonable excuse, directions provided to her to provide progress reports for the Project and that she was absent from work without approved leave or without approval from 19 August 2013 and as at 30 August 2013.	A1-DMW18 paragraph 86 to 88 A2 paragraph 77(d) Mr Gollan rang me to inform that the Respondent was taking disciplinary action and he would email me a letter. I explain the project was completed and emailed relevant documents to Simtars and I was about to go for a holiday in coming days and also my computer issues. Mr Gollan informed we will discuss these matters after my return and wished me well. no Shaw (sic) Cause letter received. My sick leave covered the period from 19 August to 2 September.	Exhibit “PKH14” to Exhibit R5
31.	2 September 2013	The applicant commenced period of pre approved leave for 2 weeks.	The Applicant commenced a period of pre-approved leave for 2 weeks.	A1 paragraph 88 & 89 Agreed	Paragraph 95 Exhibit R2
32.	18 September 2013	The applicant returns to work and makes applications for sick leave for the period 19 Aug 2013 to 2 Sept 2013.	The Applicant returns to work and makes application for sick leave for the period 19 August 2013 to 2 September 2013.	A1- DMW17 paragraph 90 Agreed Dr Rasche hand delivered the Shaw (sic) Cause letter on my return to work. I submitted sick leave application with the medical certificates attached to Mr Winter.	Paragraph 96 Exhibit R2 and Exhibit “MGW28” to Exhibit R2
33.	25 September 2013	By letter Mr Harrison suspends the applicant from work on full pay on the grounds that included that the applicant refused to participate in the PIP process after returning from annual leave.	By letter, Mr Harrison suspends the Applicant from work on full pay on grounds that included that the Applicant refused to participate in the PIP process after returning from annual leave.	A1- DMW13 and DMW14, DMW19 A2 paragraph 93 & 94 Went to work despite I was on Shaw Cause (sic) process from 18 Sept. Seek clarification from Ms Gribaudo regarding the PIP in relation to “Project completion requirements” as I have completed the project already and on top of Shaw(sic) cause. Employment Suspended.	Exhibit “PKH15” to Exhibit R5
34.	17 October 2013	Mr Harrison receives the applicants response to his letter dated 30 Aug 2013.	Mr Harrison receives the Applicant's response to his letter dated 30 August 2013	A1- DMW12 and DMW11 A2 paragraph 95 While I was overly under stress, addressed the Shaw Cause letter then emailed and registered post it on 8 Oct 2013 which was delivered to the department on 10 October.	Exhibit “PKH16” to Exhibit R5
35.	7 November 2013	Mr Harrison advises the applicant that her employment is terminated by reason that she was liable for disciplinary actions pursuant to section 187 (1) (d) and 187 (1) (e) of the Public Service Act 2008 in that she had contravened without reasonable excuse a direction given to her as a public service employee by a reasonable person and that the applicant had been absent from duty without approved leave or without approval	Mr Harrison advises the Applicant that her employment is terminated by reason that she was liable for disciplinary action pursuant to sections 187(1)(d) and 187(1)(c) of the Public Service Act 2008 in that she had contravened without reasonable excuse a direction given to her as a public service employee by a responsible person and that the Applicant had been absent from duty without approved leave or without approval.	A1- DMW9 and DMW10 DMW8 and Paragraph 98 to 105 A2- DMW147 A2 paragraph 96 I replied to the termination letter on 21 November 2013 via an email and posted later	Exhibit “PKH17” to Exhibit R5