| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 197 |
| Hearing date | 6 Sep 2011 |
| Determination date | 13 December 2011 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | A McKenzie ; J Rooney |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Harris v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent plant manager (“R”) forwarded photographs of two respondent employees (M and J) suspending themselves on equipment at work – R understood applicant had taken photographs – Respondent regarded health and safety as paramount – R suspended applicant – Respondent alleged applicant involved in unsafe act where M and J planked from great height and applicant, acting as supervisor, did not stop their behaviour – Applicant accepted acts extremely unsafe – Applicant accepted questioned M and J’s motivations but did not do enough – Applicant raised length of service, fact had no previous disciplinary record and was honest and remorseful about actions – R concluded seriousness of breach by applicant outweighed mitigating factors and conduct fell drastically short of standards expected of supervisor – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed should have been treated same as M and J who were not dismissed as only seconded to supervisor position – Authority found justification for dismissal to be determined under amended s103A Employment Relations Act 2000 – Found respondent sufficiently investigated allegations against applicant before dismissal – Found respondent adequately raised concerns with applicant before dismissal – Found applicant had reasonable opportunity to respond to concerns – Found respondent considered applicant’s explanation and matters put forward – Found respondent conducted full and fair investigation into applicant’s actions – Found applicant should have stopped conduct as in supervisory position and had training to recognise M and J engaged in unsafe conduct – Found respondent entitled to take into account fact applicant had more than one opportunity to stop conduct – Found respondent entitled to conclude applicant’s conduct was serious misconduct – Found adequate explanation for difference in treatment between applicant and M and J because of role applicant held at time – Found conduct serious enough to warrant dismissal – Dismissal justified – Production Supervisor |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3) |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Samu [1994] ERNZ 93;Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] ERNZ 466;Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan [2005] ERNZ 767 |
| Number of Pages | 18 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_197.pdf [pdf 85 KB] |