Steven Berry v Murray Goulburn Co-operative Limited. PR957500 (21 April 2005)

The AIRC has ordered a dairy food company in Victoria to reinstate a worker
it dismissed following his first episode of schizophrenia.

Commissioner Mansfield found that because of the machine operator’s mental
illness at the time, he was not in control of the actions that led to his dismissal
and therefore there was no valid reason for terminating his employment.
Medical evidence showed he was now fit to return to work.

Murray Goulburn Cooperative (MGC) fired the man after he left work during
his rostered shift without notifying his supervisor. Eight days later he was
found in the workplace at 3am with a cigarette and beer both of which are
banned at the factory. He had also left a can of beer in a fridge in the butter
room and gone into a hygienic area of the factory without regulation clothing.

Following that incident he was involved in a robbery of an empty cash bag
and two packets of cigarettes from a supermarket. As a result he received
a community-based order and his family sought psychiatric help.

He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and received treatment.

He was advised by MGC in July that he was stood-down without pay. Three
months later he advised MCG that his health had improved and he wanted
to return to work.
However, following a meeting with senior management he was informed that
he was dismissed. MGC was aware he’d been diagnosed with a mental condition
and had received treatment.

MGC maintained that consumer confidence could be affected by any breach
of its hygiene standards. It believed it had to impose a high level of responsibility
on employees for any failure to observe its standards.

Commissioner Mansfield ruled that due to the man’s mental illness at the time,
he was not in control of the actions that led to his dismissal, and on that basis his
sacking was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

He concluded the medical evidence clearly indicated the worker’s ability to
return to his former job, and that there were no special requirements that
needed to be considered by his employer.

MGC was ordered to pay the man’s lost wages from December, which was when
he was out of hospital and had finished his community service. It was left open
whether the reinstatement be to his former position, or to an acceptable
alternative position.

Ref: EQUAL TIME
Number 64 June 2005