DINAH MARGARETTE TARASINSKI v DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

y in respect of criminal offences which touch directly upon the nature of the work that those employees do. In this case I am satisfied that the offences did so touch directly upon the nature of the work. This is both in respect of the administration of and contact with prescription and other drugs, together with the question of custody of the property of others and the capacity to influence its control or disposal. There is one further aspect that touches sharply on the question and which was not addressed by the applicant in her evidence, and that is the circumstance that it is the fact that the applicant was unable to resist the pressure or influence of a young person in a matter about which the respondent was entitled to be concerned, having regard to the nature of the dealings and relations the applicant has with patients within the psychiatric system in this State. On those bases, it is my view that the respondent was entitled to consider and to apply the serious penalty of termination of employment. It ought be noted that the applicant's good record in her employment prior to the date of the commission of the offences, and the circumstances of the applicant as a supporting parent with two very young children, are relevant matters to be taken into account, and have been so taken into account by me in deciding this matter. It appears that this was also a factor that was brought to the attention of the decision maker in determining the nature of the penalty to be imposed. The other factors of mitigation relied upon by the applicant included the difficulty she would have in obtaining, and was having in obtaining, any other employment. However, in my view, these factors, whilst relevant, do not constitute the nature of the penalty imposed upon the applicant to be harsh, nor does any injustice accrue to the applicant as a result of the penalty which was imposed. In balancing out all of the factors, including those relied upon in mitigation by the applicant, the weight falls heavily against any of those factors the applicant raised, having regard to the nature of the criminal offences committed and the nature of the employment which was undertaken and the services provided in the course of that employment. For those reasons, I dismiss the application which was made by the applicant. The application made by the respondent that the proceeding be dismissed is acceded to on the basis of the merits of the proceeding. The application made pursuant to section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act is, therefore, dismissed. I find that the termination of the applicant's employment was not harsh nor unjust nor unreasonable. I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the reasons for decision of Judicial Registrar Parkinson delivered ex tempore and revised from the transcript. Associate: Dated: 3 May 1996 APPEARANCES Representative appearing for the applicant: Mr P Wheatley Health Services Union of Australia Counsel appearing for the respondent: Mr N Green Date of hearing: 3 May 1996