sometimes justice is served
I assume you mean that it has been served by the company getting a kick in the pants for their HR policy? Or are you alluding to the fact that either way, the complainant no longer works at the company...?
the process involving the investigation..by various HNZ managers was blatantly flawed and unjust
I don’t think that anyone could dispute the general comments regarding HNZ’s treatment of some employees or the way in which they manage HR. There are many explanations as to why they do what they do, but none of them are justifiable. The company is well known for their contests with the FWC.
Before going on, I'd encourage you to google the name of the commissioner and do some reading to provide some context on things. Also, I'm curious to know your thoughts on why the amount of compensation awarded is less than a quarter of what was requested. It seems incongruous when you look at the strength of the language used in the finding.
The FWC is sometimes accused of not being across the technical matters at the heart of some disputes, which means that the internal company process to manage technical disputes can carry more weight than the original issue once it reaches arbitration. I think that this is evident in this decision and had HNZ gone about things in a more considered way, then the result would have been very different. In my opinion, the commissioner has clearly misunderstood quite a lot of the technical aviation evidence presented, and has missed the point in many of his statements. But there’s no doubt that when you ask the question, ‘did the complainant receive fair and just treatment during the investigation of the incident’, the answer has to be no. If she was dismissed as the result of that process, then it’s fair enough to say she was unfairly dismissed. But it may not be fair enough to conclude that what occurred didn’t warrant dismissal or disciplinary action, as I think TorqueStripe has identified with his entirely reasonable questions.
There’s a couple of very principled people that have had their names and reputations unfairly tarnished after being dragged into this whole sorry mess – on both sides of the case. You’ve identified yourself as a friend and ex-colleague of the complainant Chook13!. It’s not clear if you worked with the complainant in the Army as well as at HNZ but there’s a few people in both organisations who might provide a robust counterpoint to your enthusiastic cheerleading. No doubt she’s grateful to you for this, but that’s what friends are for, right?
To those at HNZ who took this action against the individual ...
What’s held you back from finishing your sentence ? Typo?