Worker wins $300,000 payout over drunken conference dismissal

An insurance broker has been awarded nearly $300,000 after the NSW District Court found that he was wrongfully dismissed by his employer following a drunken night at a work conference.
Article Extracted from IBO 22/01/15


Donald Mitchell-Innes took Willis to court over his dismissal after a heavy night at a Melbourne conference in October 2012.

Mitchell-Innes and other Willis staff members attended a dinner whilst at a company training conference and he and other staff members headed out for night cap which lasted until the early hours of the following morning.

A lost hotel room key saw Mitchell-Innes locked out of his room for the night but he still made the conference at 9am the following morning.

An internal investigation led to Mitchell-Innes’ departure from Willis where he had been general manager for New South Wales since 2011.

Justice Taylor, who presided over the case, found that Mitchell-Innes was dismissed unfairly and awarded “$296,650.75,” in damages.

“I am not satisfied that Mr Mitchell-Innes engaged in gross misconduct or in ‘serious misconduct in serious circumstances’ enlivening in Willis a power summarily to dismiss Mr Mitchell-Innes. It follows that the conduct of Willis in dismissing Mr Mitchell-Innes is in breach of his agreement, and he is entitled to damages.”

It was noted by Justice Taylor that “at the time alcohol consumption, in a work context, was not uncommon amongst employees of Willis in Australia,” and while Mitchell-Innes “was not at his best” at the sales training conference his infraction was “one-off event in a period of almost nine years employment with Willis,” and didn’t warrant termination.

A spokesperson for Willis said of the case: “We were very disappointed in the decision and have lodged an appeal.”

-------------------------------

Legal costs are not disclosed

------------------------------

DO YOU HAVE DISCRIMINATION COVER

• Management Liability 

• Directors and Office Liability 

• Legal expense cover

• EPL Employment Practices Liability 

Liability is not simply about Negligence, wrongful error, act or omission, it goes much further to include breach of duty of care.. refer link: A to Z of Insurances

Insurance is like a Parachute

www.centralins..com.au

Friday Funny: Flying dildo hits bucks party guest, draws blood

Mr Skumavc said he was injured by the bullet-shaped, pink, sex toy - measuring about 12cm in length - at a bucks party to farewell friend's Peter Rolih's bachelorhood.

THE best man at a wedding was left battered and bloodied after he was hit in the head by a fast-moving dildo.

Article Extracted from NTNews 2011.02.11

The flying phallus left Darwin architect Jure Skumavc, 31, nursing a split forehead.

Mr Skumavc was still sporting a scar on his forehead at Mr Rolih's wedding nearly three weeks after being dinged by the artificial dong.

The darting dildo drama unfolded on December 28 in a rented two-bedroom unit in Brisbane.

Mr Skumavc said about eight other friends joined Mr Rolih for the party.

He said a scantily clad exotic dancer appeared after awhile and was soon performing her party trick: shooting dildos at the guests.

Mr Skumavc said those who had seen the infamous ping-pong ball scene in the Australian film The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert would know how the party trick worked.

He said the pink projectile was flying an impressive 7m across the room and looping about 2m high.

"It wasn't a strong shot (when it hit me in the head)," he said. "It probably just landed on an awkward sort of angle."

"She was shooting it through the room from one corner to the other," he said.

"Other people got it in their chest and knees. I was the only one bleeding. It was my turn and it landed straight on my forehead.

"She started apologising straight away but I just said it was fine ... then I touched my forehead and there was blood."

Mr Skumavc had difficulties describing the tearaway toy in detail.

"I don't have a massive experience with dildos," he said.

The scars left by the offending object have since healed, but Mr Skumavc said the story was still very much alive.

"People keep asking how close my face was (to cause that sort of injury)," he said.

Why is this in the WA Insurance news

Follow up report from respective insurer in regard to Public Liability and/or products liability exposures

Public Liability is a general Indemnity cover that all business should have at all times

Product Liability related to your products which is generally speaking is subject matter you have created modified or enhanced "once it leaves your possession" (you being the Insured). The question is ....was the subject matter (dildo) intended for sale (and did it leave possession) which are elements of character to define a trigger under Products Liability.

or was it a stage prop as part of the gig....   which is under general liability 

all jokes aside if affirms the complexities of legal liability issues and the need to have insurance. Liability is not simply about Negligence, wrongful error, act or omission, it goes much further to include breach of duty of care..  refer link: A to Z of Insurances

Insurance is like a Parachute

www.centralins..com.au