In Colombia, Article 51 of the Labor Code states the causes for suspension of the labor contract, including among others, the faculty of the employer to suspend the employee(s) due to serious misconduct after conducting a disciplinary investigation. In this case, the law limits the sanction to eight (8) days of suspension of the activities
Last year we reported on a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which upheld the summary dismissal of an employee for serious misconduct, even though the employer had not established, as a matter of fact, that the misconduct had occurred.
The case marked a departure from a number of earlier authorities which had referred to the need for misconduct to be clearly established, in light of the grave social and economic consequences of summary dismissal for employees.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal has now overturned the decision.
The District Court of New South Wales has ruled that an employee who was dismissed summarily for being drunk on duty was entitled, in the particular circumstances, to damages for wrongful dismissal. The damages were calculated on a basis which exceeded the 6 month notice period that applied under the contract to a termination without cause. As a consequence the employee recovered nearly AUD 300,000 in damages.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ruled that an employer did not breach the contract of employment when it summarily dismissed an employee after having formed the opinion that he was guilty of serious misconduct.
The case is significant because it marks a departure from a line of earlier authority which required that serious misconduct be established as a matter of fact, due to the grave social and economic consequences of summary dismissal for employees.