Just so it's clear about payouts and so on:
If Anderson is dismissed in accordance with all relevant industrial relations legislation and within the terms of his employment contract, there will be NO expensive payout.
Calling your boss a 'low c___', among other things, will almost certainly be considered an offence for which an employee can be sacked, quite legally, with little hope of appeal. No court in the country would be prepared to rule against such a dismissal, provided the employer is able to back up their actions with documented evidence of the offence. If there were any witnesses to Anderson's outburst, any at all, they will be called to give evidence. So as for the idle gossip peddled by a journo, well a court hearing will sort the wheat from the chaff there.
Adding to the armoury are these 'warning letters'. Bear in mind though, the 'three strikes' rule applies to three documented incidents OF THE SAME NATURE.
For example, I can't be sacked for racking up three offences, written warnings or not, if those three offences are being late once, swearing at a colleague once, and making a personal phone call, for argument's sake.
I can, however, be sacked for being late THREE times, if each occasion was documented and I was warned in writing, counselled, etc etc.
I can be sacked for swearing at colleagues three times...You get the picture.
The most important thing to remember is that IF he is legally dismissed, an appeal will most likely fail, and this means NO PAYOUT.
The easy option would be to come to terms acceptable to both parties and see him walk. THAT would be costly, the board know this, so it appears they have chosen the more confrontational path.
Like any conflict, nobody will win from this. Nobody.
