Koenig v Minda Incorporated [1996] IRCA 134

is union and a solicitor during this time. The Respondent made it very clear to the Applicant that his employment could be terminated as a result of its investigations. The Applicant had opportunity to and did take considered legal advice. The Applicant chose to say nothing in his defence during the process of investigation by the Respondent. He did not even deny the allegations against him. He had made a statement to Police which he did not provide to the Respondent and which the Respondent had no right to obtain, but had requested from him. The Applicant has a right not to answer questions or provide a response to the Respondent. However in doing so he must take the consequences of his decision to remain silent, in circumstances where he now seeks to show that his employment has been terminated unlawfully. In evidence the Applicant denied the allegations against him. His evidence before me raised some doubts about whether or not he had taken Mr Pratt's wallet. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the evidence of the Applicant's co-workers was unreliable. Whilst there was certainly variations in their recollections. My impression of those witnesses was that they were honest and doing their best to recall events of 12 months ago. I am satisfied that the Respondent undertook a reasonable investigation of the incidents and gave the Applicant ample opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. I am satisfied that Mr. Wren honestly believed on reasonable grounds that the allegations against Mr Koenig were true. In my view the Respondent had a valid reason for the termination of the Applicant's employment. In considering whether the termination of this Applicant's employment was terminated harshly, unjustly or unreasonably I have had particular regard to this work situation, and the high degree of care owed by the Respondent to it's residents. A relationship of trust must exist between the Respondent, it's employees and the persons in their care. In my view the Applicant had a responsibility to his employer and to those in it's care to provide whatever assistance he could in the investigation of the incidents. I am not satisfied in the circumstances of this matter that the termination of the Applicant's employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. I certify that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the reasons for my judgment. DATE OF HEARING : 19, 20, 21 and 27 February 1996 FOR THE APPLICANT : Mr Dowd FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr Coppola