| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 11 |
| Determination date | 13 January 2012 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | H White ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Watson v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court – 26 years length of service – Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct after applicant allegedly attempted to board Emirates aircraft, spoke sarcastically to Emirates group representative and delayed departure of flight applicant was rostered to work on – Applicant claimed wanted to know how many crew were used on plane which respondent was to get in near future and wanted to look at aircraft – Captain of Emirates flight asked representative to get applicant’s name and employment number because concerned about security – Applicant accompanied representative back to Emirates aircraft and explained and apologised for actions – Respondent plane delayed by 36 minutes and some of delay attributed to applicant going to Emirates aircraft – Emirates complained about incident – Applicant sought removal on basis important question of law likely to arise and likelihood of challenge to Authority determination – Whether seven month delay between incident and decision to dismiss was without good reason – Applicant claimed matter important because could inform and affect way employers conduct disciplinary investigations and use suspension – Authority found question could not be decisive or strongly influential in how present case should be resolved and did not have relative importance for removal – Found length of time taken for disciplinary investigation was factual issue – Found no obligation on employer to suspend employee while investigating allegation of serious misconduct – Found rare that likelihood of challenge sufficient on own to warrant removal – Found not sufficient certainty about inevitability of challenge to override general statutory obligation of Authority to investigate employment relationship problems in first instance – Found even if challenge occurred, inappropriate to remove parties’ right of access to two triers of fact – Application to remove declined – Flight Services Manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(4);ERA s178(2)(a) |
| Cases Cited | Hanlon v International Education Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] ERNZ 1 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_11.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |