Australia, Sept. 6 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 6:

1. The Applicant, Mr Leighton Grant, seeks relief from victimisation pursuant to ss 210 and 213 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (IR Act) against the Respondent, the Commissioner of Police.

2. The Applicant is a non-executive administrative employee of the NSW Police Force. The Commissioner of Police is regarded as the employer of the Applicant in proceedings of this kind: Police Act 1990, s 85.

3. The precise nature of the Applicant's role within the Police Force is a matter of dispute between the parties, with that dispute giving rise to the events that have led to this proceeding. Nevertheless, it is not in dispute that the Applicant has been employed in the NSW Police Force since 2000 and in December 2010 he was employed to perform the role of WAN (Wide Area Network) Specialist, Technology Operations (Computer Systems Officer Level 5).

4. The Applicant maintains that over the last four to five years, the Respondent has made substantive changes to his role and continues to insist that he perform duties that he regards as being outside of the role and grade for which he is employed. This has led to a number of somewhat acrimonious interactions between the Applicant and his superiors regarding the issue, in particular with Mr Paul Drexler, Director, Network & Security Platform Services.

5. On or around 7 February 2024, the Applicant was directed to attend a meeting with Mr Drexler and Chief Inspector Toby Austin, to take place on 19 February 2024. He was advised that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss "current and future working conditions".

6. It is fair to say that the meeting on 19 February 2024 did not go particularly well. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was upset and distressed during the meeting and used offensive language. After the meeting Mr Drexler and Chief Inspector Austin sent emails to the Human Resources/Professional Standards Manager of the Technology Command, Mr Rodney Ormes, complaining about the Applicant's conduct during the meeting. At around the same time the Applicant sent a number of emails to Mr Ormes making various complaints, including complaints that he was being bullied and harassed by Mr Drexler.

7. On 13 March 2024 the Applicant received a letter from Chief Inspector Stephen Newton, the Manager of the Administrative Officer Conduct Unit (AOCU) within the Professional Standards Command, (Allegations Letter), alleging that the Applicant had behaved unreasonably and unprofessionally towards Mr Drexler during the 19 February meeting; setting out details of the allegation; informing the Applicant that if a finding of misconduct were to be made against him, various forms of action could be taken pursuant to s 69(4)(d)-(g) of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (GSE Act); and inviting the Applicant's response.

8. The Applicant's solicitors, Maurice Blackburn, provided a response to Chief Inspector Newton on 24 April 2024 (MB Response). The MB Response conceded that the Applicant was "significantly distressed and stressed before and during the meeting" but denied that he approached the meeting "in an argumentative, agitated and threatening state" and/or engaged with Mr Drexler in a way that was "aggressive", as alleged in the Allegations Letter. The MB Response sought to explain the reason for the behaviour and disputed that it constituted misconduct. The MB Response also included an allegation that the operative reason for the decision to take disciplinary action against the Applicant was because he had made complaints within the meaning of s 210(1)(j) of the IR Act (as the IR Act then provided) and warned that steps to take disciplinary action against the Applicant would constitute victimisation in contravention of s 210 of the IR Act (Section 210 Complaint).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1987d7c09cf3625031f4dc07)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.