//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2009] AIRC 791
Australian Industrial Relations Commission
2009-09-29
Original judgment source is linked above.
Note: An appeal pursuant to s.120 (C2009/10738) was lodged against this decision.
s.643 - Application for relief re (Harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable) termination of employment
Termination of employment on the grounds of alleged misconduct.
[1] Mrs Tina Sulis (the applicant) filed an application for relief in relation to the termination of her employment Woolworths Limited (Woolworths, the respondent) on the grounds that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The matter did not settle at conciliation and was referred to me for arbitration.
[2] The matter was heard on 29 June and 18 August 2009. Mrs Sulis was represented by Mr John Wormington, and Woolworths by Mr John Murphy.
[3] Mrs Sulis commenced employment with the respondent in March 1999 as a long life night filler. She worked at the respondent's Mount Hutton store. On the evening of 27 October 2008 she attended the Charlestown Medical and Dental Centre (the surgery) with her husband and, at around 5:50pm, saw Dr Alarape for a consultation. After he had examined her he gave her a medical certificate. The certificate was generated on a computer and then printed out. The printed version read:
"This is to certify that Tina is unfit for work from 27/10/08 to 27/10/08 inclusive. Tina is suffering from a medical condition."
[4] At some point this certificate was altered by hand so that that the second "27/10/08" was changed to "28/10/08". The effect was to add an additional day, so that it indicated the applicant was unfit for work for 27 and 28 October, rather than simply 27 October 2008.
[5] On 11 November 2008 the applicant was called into a meeting with Mr Paul Silvestri, the Mount Hutton store manager. She was asked whether she had altered the medical certificate. She denied that she had done so. A second meeting occurred on the evening of 12 November. The applicant again denied that she had altered the certificate. She was then advised that her employment was being terminated with immediate effect because of a serious breach of company policy, in particular in relation to the values of trust, honesty and integrity.
[6] The following gave evidence on behalf of the applicant:
[7] The following gave evidence on behalf of the respondent:
[8] Part of Mrs Sulis's evidence [Exhibit S9] was a report that she had commissioned from Ms Candice Moussa, a forensic scientist and document examiner employed by Forensic Document Services Pty Ltd. Ms Moussa examined a copy of the medical certificate together with specimens of Mr and Mrs Sulis's handwriting. This forensic report (dated 31 March 2009), inter alia, included the following:
"The handwritten examinations were limited by the overwritten nature of the numeral 8 as well as by the inherently small amount of writing in the entry.
The comparative examinations of the numeral 8 on Q1 [the medical certificate] and the specimen numerals 8 attributed to each specimen writer revealed differences in the structure. Within the limitations discussed, while there is no evidence to suggest a common writer, no conclusion can be expressed as to whether or not the alteration on Q1 was written either by [Mrs Sulis] or Mr Sulis.
The ink(s) used to alter the date and write the signature on Q1 were examined using the infrared facilities of the Video Spectral Comparator (VSC). This examination revealed the use of two black ballpoint pen inks. The use of two inks establishes that there was an interruption between the writing of the two entries where one pen was put down and another one picked up but no comment can be made as to the lapse of time between the two writing sessions."
[9] This forensic evidence was unchallenged. It casts no direct light on the question of who altered the date on the medical certificate but it does indicate that a different pen was used to make the alteration from that used by Dr Alarape to sign the certificate.
"Both my husband Peter and I went into the consultation room with Dr Alarape where he began his consultation. After Dr Alarape finished his brief examination he printed a prescription for Anagraine to reduce vomiting and give pain relief. He then asked "do you need a certificate for work". I replied "yes" and he typed details into the computer and printed one out, but when the certificate came out of his printer he said "oh wrong paper" when we looked over he had printed it onto Symbion pathology paper, so he then screwed it up and placed in the bin. Dr Alarape then placed a blank piece of paper into the printer and reprinted the certificate. When it came out of the printer and without saying why he then proceeded to alter the date on the certificate and then signed the bottom. He handed it to me and we left the room."
[11] During her cross examination, the applicant said that the doctor did not ask her how many days she needed a certificate for [PN 50], nor did she ask him for any particular number of days [PN51]. She said there was no discussion about how many days he was giving her off [PN62-72]. When asked whether he used the same pen to alter the date on the certificate and then sign it she replied
"---I don't think he did because he had a bunch of pens on his desk and he was shuffling around and like moving bits and pieces.
Did you see him put the pen that he used to change the date down and pick up another one to sign it? --- No, I can't say that I did see him sit the pen down and pick another pen up." [PN75-77]
[12] During cross examination Mrs Sulis said she did not at first notice the certificate was for two days as she did not look at the certificate at all on that evening, but that she was expecting the certificate to be for one day [PN78-79]. She said that it was not until the next day that she saw that the doctor had altered the certificate to include the 28th [PN83].
[13] Mr Murphy put to Mrs Sulis that she had said she saw the doctor change the date on the certificate prior to signing it. She responded:
So you knew at that point that he'd given you two days off? --- Well actually to be honest no, I didn't, because I didn't look at the certificate. I didn't know what he had put to begin with to do that.
So you're saying you saw him write something? --- Something, yes, on the certificate.
Right, so it's only later that you've realised that is was, okay? --- Yes. Yes.
MR MURPHY: I think you said earlier that it wasn't until the next day that you realised he'd changed the 7 to an 8? --- No, I seen, like yes, that is correct. Sorry, yes". [PN86-90]
"I accompanied Tina into the consultation room in order for me to understand why Tina was so ill. When we walked in to the room Tina sat closest to Dr Alarape's desk and I sat in the seat next to her, but I sat forward in the seat so I could hear what he was saying and see what he was doing.
Dr Alarape began by asking Tina what was wrong and Tina replied that she had been vomiting on and off all day and had severe headaches and a fever. He then asked her if she could be pregnant. She replied no, but then I replied, "no it isn't possible as I have had a vasectomy". We then joked that it would be a miracle. He then asked a number of other personal health questions. The Doctor then rose from his chair and looked into Tina's ears with his ear checker thing and then sat back down and attached the blood pressure device and checked her blood pressure. After these checks he then advised for Tina to have a blood test as he still wasn't sure what caused her illness but he still printed a prescription for Anagraine.
After printing out a Symbion Pathology referral he then asked Tina if she needed a medical certificate for her work. Tina replied yes I do. Dr Alarape then proceeded to type into his computer, he then printed a certificate out but when it came out of the printer and he looked at it, he said "oh wrong paper", and both Tina and I witnessed that he had printed Tina's certificate out onto Symbion pathology paper so he then screwed it up and place it in the bin. Dr Alarape then placed white paper into the printer and printed the certificate out again. When the certificate came out this time I leaned forward and looked to see if it was on the correct paper and saw Dr Alarape change the right hand date and then sign the bottom. He then handed it to Tina.
We stood up and left the Doctors consultation room."
[15] During his cross examination Mr Sulis said there was no discussion during the medical consultation about the number of days the medical certificate was for [PN306].
[16] Mr Sulis said when asked during his cross examination whether he saw what was on the certificate:
"---I deliberately looked over to see it was on the right paper first, and I saw him altering it, the right-hand date on that second certificate which is when I looked at my wife with a little bit of curiosity.
Why was that? --- Well, I didn't know what he was altering it to because I couldn't see exactly what he'd printed out.
Did you see that he had altered the date from the 27th to the 28th? --- I did, I couldn't see exactly what the days were that he was giving her. No, I can't say that.
But you did see him making an alteration? --- I did see him make the alteration.
When did you see what the alteration was? --- We walked out of the surgery, we walked up to pathology first. It wasn't till I, we walked actually out onto the walkway of the surgery, walking to go get in our car I asked to see what he'd given her in respect to the pathology paper, the prescription, I asked to look at the prescription, what he prescribed her, and the certificate, how much time he gave her off work. [PN310-315]
[17] Mr Sulis's evidence is that when his wife handed him the certificate he saw that the second date of the 27th had been changed to the 28th, with the 7 having been changed to an 8 in pen. He said nothing about this to his wife and simply handed the certificate back to her. She did not look at the alteration. [PN324].
[18] Mr Sulis said that the doctor did not sign the certificate at the same time he altered the date.
"When you say the doctor made the alteration, he also signed the bottom of the certificate at the same time didn't he? --- Not at the same time he didn't no.
Well straight after he made the alteration he signed the certificate didn't he? --- Well, he would have, there is a signature on the certificate.
But you saw him do it? --- I didn't see the signature, no.
But you saw him sign the medical certificate? --- No I didn't.
Would you look at paragraph 7 of your statement? The bottom of page 2 you say this:
When the certificate came out this time I leaned forward and looked to see if it was on the correct paper and saw Dr Alarape change the right hand date and then sign the bottom?".
So you did see him sign it? --- I don't believe I did see him sign it, no. That's I must have just presumed he'd sign the bottom there.
I want to suggest to you that when you prepared this statement it was your intention to convey that Dr Alarape had made the alteration and signed the certificate at the same time? --- I don't understand what you're saying there.
Well, the words you've used are "and saw Dr Alarape change the right hand date and then sign the bottom"? --- Yes, I did see Dr Alarape change the right hand date.
You understand now don't you that the document has been forensically examined? --- Mm.
The forensic expert has stated that the pen used to sign the document is different from the one that was used to change the date? --- That's correct, yes.
That's why you're now saying that you didn't see him sign it? --- No that's not why I'm saying that at all" [PN327-339].
[19] There are a number of troubling aspects to the evidence given by both Mrs and Mr Sulis about the medical consultation and its immediate aftermath. Mrs Sulis said in her written statement of 3 February 2009 that she saw the doctor alter the date on the certificate and then sign it at the bottom. Her statement made no suggestion of any break between these two actions. However the forensic report obtained by the applicant in March 2009 (i.e. after the completion of the applicant's and her husband's written statement) indicated that two different pens were used to alter the date on the certificate and sign it. During the hearing Mrs Sulis said she did not think the doctor used the same pen to sign the certificate "as he had a bunch of pens on his desk and he was shuffling around and like moving bits and pieces". During cross examination, Mr Sulis directly contradicted the evidence in his written statement and said that he had not seen the doctor sign the certificate.
[20] There are other troubling aspects about the evidence given by Mr and Mrs Sulis. Both were quite clear in their written statements that they saw the doctor alter the date on the certificate. Yet Mrs Sulis said that she thought the certificate was only for one day until she looked at it on the day after the consultation. When this apparent contradiction was put to her she backtracked and implied that while she saw the doctor make some handwritten change she did not know what this was until the next day. Mr Sulis on the other hand continued to maintain that he saw the doctor change the second date - indeed said he was deliberately looking over to see what he was doing - but said he did not know what it was changed to.
[21] I found the applicant and her husband's evidence about when they realised how many days off the doctor had given Mrs Sulis rather unconvincing. Mrs Sulis said she did not realise that she had been given two days off until the day after the consultation - despite her written statement saying she saw the doctor during the consultation alter the date on the certificate, and despite Mr Sulis's evidence that he "looked at his wife with a little bit of curiosity" at the time the alteration was made. Mr Sulis also said he asked to see the certificate after they walked out of the surgery and saw his wife had been given two days off, though somewhat implausibly he said nothing about it to her at the time.
[22] In his written statement [Exhibit W9] Dr Alarape said he had reviewed the medical notes he had made during the consultation with Mrs Sulis. He said that from his notes "and from my recollection of the consultation" he believed that Mrs Sulis presented with some medical symptoms. He examined her, including taking her temperature and measuring her blood pressure and recorded his observations in his medical notes (which were attached to his statement). He offered to refer Mrs Sulis to undergo some further laboratory tests and gave her a request from. However she declined to do so. His assessment was that she was suffering from a viral infection or migraine headache.
"It is my normal practice, when providing medical certificates, to fill in the relevant details on an electronic pro forma document in the Surgery's computer system. The pro forma document is set up so that the details, such as relevant dates, can be easily inserted and the document can then be printed out and handed to the patient….
I cannot recall ever making a hand-written amendment to any medical certificate that I have provided to a patient using the pro forma document from the Surgery's computer system. I believe I have never done so because, in my view, such an approach is poor practice and it is inconsistent with standards of proper clinical management.
I cannot recall amending, by hand or otherwise, the original certificate that I issued to Ms Sulis on 27 October 2008…I do not believe that I did so.
The only certificates that I remember that I have ever filled out by hand are Centrelink certificates and some insurance and institutional certificates that require hand-written entries. The certificate that I issued to Ms Sulis…is not one of those certificates. In any case, where I make hand-written amendments to Centrelink or other medical certificates that require hand-written entries and other legal documents, I always sign my initials next to the amendment to indicate that it was me who had made the amendment. I cannot remember ever making hand-written amendments to a certificate that I had printed off the Surgery's computer system. It is simply not something that I have done. In addition, to the best of my recollection, I have always initialled any hand-written amendments that I have ever made to any formal documents.
If I had needed to amend the pro forma medical certificate which was on the Surgery's system, I could have simply gone back into the system while Ms Sulis was there and changed the date and printed it off again. There was no reason for me to amend by hand that certificate… when it was an easy job just to print off another amended copy from the system.
[24] Dr Alarape was cross examined by Mr Wormington at length about the basis for his evidence about what occurred during the consultation [PN101-136]. While Dr Alarape's replies were not all that clear, I am satisfied that he has very little if any direct recollection of what occurred during the consultation. For example, he did not remember what time of the day the consultation took place [PN141]. Moreover, he stated that when Mrs Sulis saw him (which was in the late afternoon) she had told him that she had not gone to work that day [PN173]. However, it is uncontested that Mrs Sulis actually worked night shifts - she had not yet been to work on the day in question and was only due to attend work later that evening. I am satisfied that Dr Alarape's evidence is based on his contemporaneous notes, which he entered into the computer system, and his normal practice. The notes themselves make no mention of how many days the medical certificate was issued for, though they included a copy of the pro forma certificate he had completed on the computer system at the time of the consultation. I conclude that Dr Alarape has formed the view that he did not manually alter the medical certificate not because he has a clear recollection that he did not do so, but on the basis that this was not something that he would do, as it would have been inconsistent with his normal practice.
[25] I am satisfied that while Dr Alarape has no direct recollection of whether he made a handwritten alteration to Mrs Sulis's certificate, it is not his practice to make such amendments.
[26] According to Mrs Sulis, her husband rang the store on the afternoon of 27 October 2008 but she did not know whether he indicated that she would be off work for one or two days [PN100-104]. This conflicts with the evidence of Mr Nigel Bye who said in his written statement [W5] that
"On the afternoon of 27 October 2008, I received a phone call from Ms Sulis at the store. I distinctly remember this because 27 October is my birthday. Ms Sulis and I had a conversation with words to the following effect:
Ms Sulis: "Hi, it's Tina. I'm calling in sick for tonight."
Me: "Right, Tina. Thanks. At least you've given me a chance to give someone else a call then."
At the end of the conversation, I filled in the night fill book that Ms Sulis was sick for 27 October 2008.
I am aware that Ms Sulis called in sick for 28 October 2008 as this had been recorded in the night fill book when I checked it the next day. I do not know who took this further phone call or message."
[27] Mr Bye reaffirmed during his oral evidence that it was Mrs Sulis who rang him on 27 October to advise that she would not be in to work that evening. He gave his evidence in a clear and forthright manner and I accept its veracity.
[28] Mrs Sulis returned to work on Wednesday 29 October 2008 and handed the medical certificate to the cash office [PN105-6].
[29] According to Ms Kruk's written statement [Exhibit W7], she was contacted on the morning of 30 October 2008 by the pay clerk and told that Mrs Sulis's medical certificate was unacceptable as it had been altered and she could not be paid for the two days. Ms Kruk told Mrs Sulis that as the medical certificate had been manually changed it could not be accepted until the doctor verified that he had altered it. Mrs Sulis said she would ring the doctor and get him to fax through another copy of the certificate.
[30] According to her statement, Mrs Sulis then phoned the surgery and said "could you get Dr Alarape to fax another certificate through to work please as they won't accept the first one."
[31] In her written statement [Exhibit W1] on or about 3 November 2008, Ms Moore says that she answered a phone call at the surgery from Mrs Sulis. (During her oral evidence she conceded this conversation may have been on 30 October [PN363, PN383.]) Mrs Sulis asked for a reprint of the medical certificate that Dr Alarape had issued to her because her workplace had lost it. Ms Moore then emailed the doctor that Ms Sulis's medical certificate had been lost and she needed a replacement. Shortly after, Dr Alarape handed her a medical certificate which she faxed to the Woolworths Mount Hutton Store. The certificate indicated that Mrs Sulis was unfit for work "from 27/10/08 to 27/10/08 inclusive".
[32] According to Ms Moore's statement Mrs Sulis rang back a few days later. Mrs Sulis said that "the certificate should have stated 27/10/2008 to 28/10/2008. It was for two days, not for one."
[33] Ms Moore spoke to Dr Alarape the next day and told him that Mrs Sulis said the certificate was for two days not one. Dr Alarape replied "When I reprinted the certificate from the computer, the dates were 27/10/2008 to 27/10/2008…it only had the one day. If she was still unwell, she should have come back and been assessed for any further days off."
[34] Ms Moore then called Mrs Sulis at her home. She told her that Dr Alarape had said the certificate was issued for one day only. Mrs Sulis responded "No. he had it changed by hand." When Ms Moore told Mrs Sulis that if she needed a further day off she should have come back into the medical centre to be assessed, Mrs Sulis replied: The medical certificate was for two days. I shouldn't have to come back into the Surgery. He hand-wrote the amendment."
[35] In a reply statement, dated 23 June 2009 [Exhibit S8], Mrs Sulis denied saying that her workplace had lost the medical certificate; merely that Woolworths would not accept the first one. Indeed during cross examination she denied that she ever spoke to Ms Moore and said she spoke to someone named Debbie [PN126-7]. Her evidence is that she did not ask for an extra day to be added to the certificate. She also denied that she rang the surgery a second time, or that anyone from the surgery rang her at home. The statement concluded:
"I have had no need to contact the Charlestown Medical Centre since the 30th October 2008 as I was NOT aware that the reprint of the certificate was different to the original at the time it was faxed. This was only shown to me by Paul Silvestri on Tuesday 11th November. My phone records have been requested from my provider and will be produced for the hearing if received in time to verify the above."
[36] I found Ms Moore to be a credible witness. Her evidence was internally consistent, given in a straightforward manner, and was unshaken by cross examination. She has no connection with the respondent and no interest in telling anything other than the truth. I am satisfied that the conversations she referred to in her evidence occurred along the lines she indicated.
[37] According to Ms Kruk, after receiving the second copy of the certificate she noticed that it only provided for one day's leave. She then contacted the surgery to make some enquiries, but for various reasons was not able to speak to Dr Alarape until 6 November 2008. She asked him whether he could have manually altered the certificate. According to Ms Kruk's statement he said words to the following effect:
"The certificate cannot be manually altered because it is a legal document. If I altered it, I would do it within the computer system. The alteration would need to be counter signed and it is not legal to manually alter certificates. What is on the certificate is what I authorised. The certificate is on my computer so why would I manually change it when I can change it with one key on the computer?"
[38] On 11 November 2008, Mr Silvestri conducted an interview with Mrs Sulis at the Mount Hutton store. Mrs Sulis was accompanied by Toni May, the union representative of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association. According to his written statement [Exhibit W8], Mr Silvestri asked Mrs Sulis to explain the altered doctor's certificate. She replied:
"The doctor had given it to me that way. I didn't even look at it. I just grabbed it from the kitchen bench to deliver it at my next shift."
[39] Mrs Sulis denied she had changed the certificate. Mr Silvestri adjourned the meeting until the next evening (12 November 2008).
[40] According to Mr Silvestri, he was contacted by Amy Gibson from the surgery on the morning of 12 November 2008 who asked him to fax through an altered copy of the medical certificate so that she could give it to the doctor to see if he had altered it. He then spoke to Dr Alarape. Dr Alarape said he did not need to see the certificate as he did not alter it. He added:
"If I had altered the certificate, I would have counter-signed any alteration. But I did not alter the certificate and told Tina that today. If she has done something silly, I feel very sorry for her. But I did not alter the certificate. So I do not need to see the certificate and have already told Tina this. I'm really busy, I don't have time for all this stuff. I have other people who really need to see me."
[41] As previously arranged, Mr Silvestri met with Mrs Sulis again on the evening of 12 November 2008. Mr Silvestri told Mrs Sulis that the doctor had denied altering the certificate. According to Mr Silvestri, she replied:
"The doctor is lying. He made a couple of mistakes when he was printing the certificates. He printed it on the wrong form. So he reprinted it and I left the doctor's surgery."
[42] After a brief suspension, Mr Silvestri told Mrs Sulis words to the following effect:
"We have decided not to prosecute you in relation to this. But your employment with Woolworths will be terminated effective immediately because of a serious breach of company policy, in particular the values of trust, honesty and integrity." [Exhibit W8, paragraph 47].
[43] According to Mr Silvestri's statement, Mrs Sulis continued to claim that the doctor was lying and for the first time indicated to him that her husband had been with her during the medical consultation and would prove that the doctor was lying. [Exhibit W8, paragraph 49].
[44] Mr Silvestri's statement then records a conversation he had the next day with Dr Alarape. The doctor rang him and said he had heard that Mrs Sulis had been fired and asked to see a faxed copy of the altered certificate. After consulting with human resources, he then faxed the copy [Exhibit W8, paragraphs 51-53].
[45] According to Mr Silvestri, Dr Alarape called him again on or around 26 February 2009 and asked for another copy of the certificate. At this point Dr Alarape was aware that Mrs Sulis was challenging her dismissal. The doctor's final comments to Mr Silvestri were:
"I am not God. But I am 99 per cent sure that I use the computer to make amendments to certificates or counter-sign handwritten amendments. The '8' didn't look like my '8'. I don't have time for this." [Exhibit W8, paragraph 54].
[46] The applicant has been consistent in her assertion that Dr Alarape manually altered the medical certificate. The doctor is equally adamant that he did not make the alteration. I am satisfied that he has no direct recollection of what occurred during the consultation with Mrs Sulis. However I accept his evidence that to make a manual alteration in the manner suggested would be inconsistent with his normal practice. He has no reason not to be completely honest about this. Indeed, it might have been easier for him to have said he simply did not recall what happened.
[47] As noted above, some aspects of both Mrs and Mr Sulis's evidence about what occurred during and after the medical consultation are troubling, and tend to undermine the credibility of Mr and Mrs Sulis as witnesses.
[48] A further factor undermining Mrs Sulis's credibility is the contradiction between her evidence and that of Ms Moore. I have already observed that I found Ms Moore to be a credible witness and that her evidence is to be believed. According to Ms Moore, she spoke to the applicant on three separate occasions. Yet Mrs Sulis claims that she never spoke to her at all. While the discrepancies do not concern matters of great substance they tend to undermine the credibility of the applicant. I also prefer the evidence of Mr Bye over that of the applicant.
[49] After having considered these findings as to credibility, I find I cannot give much weight to the evidence of the applicant. Given the evidence of the respondent's witnesses my conclusion is that on the balance of probabilities the applicant is guilty of the alleged misconduct.
Was the termination harsh, unjust or unreasonable?
[50] Pursuant to s. 652 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 the Commission, in determining whether a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable must have regard to:
"(a) whether there was a valid reason for the termination related to the employee's capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the employee was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the employee; and
(d) if the termination related to unsatisfactory performance by the employee - whether the employee had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the termination; and
(e) the degree to which the size of the employer's undertaking, establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination; and
(f) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the undertaking, establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination; and
(g) any other matters that the Commission considers relevant.
[51] In closing, Mr Wormington said the following:
"My friend made a submission that the case lives or dies on the issue of who made the alteration….In my submission, that submission is incorrect. Your Honour, at the end of the day may not be able to decide who made the alteration to the certificate. What your Honour needs to do, in my submission, what your Honour needs to look at is whether the actions of the employer were reasonable in light of what occurred and whether the applicant was treated with fairness in the way they handled the matter."
[52] This is not an accurate description of the task before the Commission. In cases such as this where the applicant has had his or her employment terminated for alleged misconduct, the Commission is obliged to determine whether the alleged conduct occurred [1]. Moreover, in determining whether the alleged conduct took place, the Commission must make a finding on the basis of the evidence in the proceedings before it. The test is not whether the employer believed, on reasonable grounds after sufficient enquiry, that the employee was guilty of the conduct which resulted in termination[2].
[53] I have already concluded, on the basis of the evidence, that the applicant is guilty of the alleged misconduct. Such misconduct amounts to a serious breach of an employee's duty of honesty and constitutes a valid reason for the termination of the applicant's employment.
[54] It is clear from the evidence that Mrs Sulis was notified at the meeting of 11 November 2008 of the respondent's concern that she had altered the medical certificate, and was given an opportunity to respond to the allegation.
[55] I do not consider that sub clauses 650 (3) (a) (b) or (c) have any bearing on the circumstances of this case, nor do I consider that any other matters are relevant.
[56] The termination of Mrs Sulis's employment was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Her application is dismissed.
[1] Edwards v Giudice, Moore J. [1999] FCA 1836; [94 FCR 561]
[2] King v Freshmore, Ross VP, Williams SDP and Hingley C, (Print S4213)
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Tina Louise Sulis
Woolworths Limited [2009] AIRC 791;