Skip to main content

Former health boss Jane Holden appeals against unfair dismissal ruling

Former public hospital boss Jane Holden has launched an appeal against the Supreme Court’s dismissal of her $2 million unfair sacking claim.

Ms Holden was dismissed as the acting chief executive of Tasmanian Health Organisation South in 2014, soon after the release of a Tasmanian Integrity Commission report into the health system.

Ms Holden sued the State Government, seeking payment equal to the balance of her five-year contract, plus for another five-year term, equal to nearly $2 million.

Earlier this month, Justice Shan Tennent ruled in the Government’s favour, dismissing Ms Holden’s claim in its entirety and ordering she pay the Government’s costs of defending the civil action.

Ms Holden’s legal team claimed she was sacked as a result of findings made by the Integrity Commission.

Ms Holden rejected those findings when she gave evidence during her week-long civil case last year. She was made redundant with a $211,000 severance payment by Health Minister 

Michael Ferguson in June 2014, three months after an Integrity Commission Report was released.

Ms Holden said her reputation was damaged by her sacking and its subsequent publicity.
After applying for numerous jobs, she said she was only able to find a hospital administrator role in the Papua New Guinea highlands on half her old salary.

In papers filed with the Supreme Court this week by Hobart barrister Audrey Mills, Ms Holden has set out 13 grounds of appeal against Justice Tennent’s ruling.

Among them, it is claimed the judge erred in failing to hold that Ms Holden was entitled to be paid out the balance of her contract and also failed to find she was entitled to damages for the lost opportunity of a new five-year contract.

Ms Holden’s appeal seeks to have the original judgment wholly set aside and replaced with a ruling that the appellant’s claim for damages be assessed by the court and the Government pay costs.

AWPTI - workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide


Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations




Labels:
Location: Sydney NSW, Australia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...
Post a Comment
Read more

Workplace Investigation biased process

The presence of bias be it actual or perceived during an investigation can derail the investigation and undermine any findings and recommendations. Complaint of bias are often raised relating to two areas, the investigation process itself or the investigation interviews. This article will examine the process, part two will examine bias during interviews. Workplace investigations are defined as  "an unbiased gathering of evidence"  and to ensure that that a complaint of bias is not raised or substantiated it is important to follow these rules; Approach the investigation with an open mind. Do no make any judgements on the parties Do not make any judgements on the truthfulness of any of the parties versions of events until all the evidence has been gathered. Gather all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the complaint Do not form a theory and then seek evidence to support your theory only Do not make early determinations If you feel that you ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal The Fair Work Commission (in the case of  Sekirski v Scope (Vic) Ltd [2017] FWC 1200 ) has found that an employee who assaulted a co-worker by striking her in the face was validly dismissed.  Stif Sekirski commenced employment as a Disability Support Worker with Scope (Vic) Ltd in November 2014.  Mr Sekirski’s employment was terminated on 2 September 2016 on grounds of serious misconduct. It was alleged that Mr Sekirski punched a co-worker in the face, then called her a bit** and threw a chair in her direction.  The FWC was satisfied that this conduct had occurred, and held that this conduct provided Scope with a valid reason to terminate Mr Sekirski’s employment. It is important that when confronted with matters involving violence in the workplace employers ensure that they conduct a timely and thorough investigation.   We recommend that even if summary dismissal is a likely outcome you should s...
1 comment
Read more