| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 6 |
| Hearing date | 5 Oct 2011 |
| Determination date | 17 January 2012 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | J Jermy ; A Knowsley |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Davis v Richardson Drilling Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant required to move to Hamilton to work on rig according to employment agreement (“EA”) – Applicant involved in pole driving matter onsite but matter never reported or referred to in performance review – Applicant involved in car accident while driving for work purposes – Applicant advised of reduction in workload for Hamilton project and applicant would have to commence back in Wellington – Applicant claimed told work in Hamilton would last for three years and was upset – Applicant took sick day and approached another firm for new job which was reported to respondent – Leading hand told respondent applicant had photos of incident involving pole driver and threatened to show Transpower health and safety people – Respondent informed by Groundline that applicant had discussed respondent’s matters – Applicant suspended on full pay – Applicant advised of allegations and that consequence could be dismissal – Applicant admitted threatened to show photos of pole driver incident to ruin respondent’s reputation but claimed was spur of moment comment because was upset – Applicant dismissed – Authority found applicant’s place of work Wellington with assignment to other places – Found applicant had no input into decision to suspend as required in EA – Found respondent’s decision to suspend initiated by applicant’s behaviour leading to suspension – Found applicant disadvantaged as employment made less secure – Found applicant disruptive and potentially threatened standing of respondent – Found matter not pursued – Found applicant’s action of looking for another job while on sick leave led respondent to honestly held belief that had been misled – Found allegations put in writing – Found applicant given reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations – Found respondent genuinely considered applicant’s explanation – Found sufficient investigation – Found summary dismissal was within range of responses available to respondent – Dismissal justified – Trainee Drill Operator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s103A(5) |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Angus and McKean v Ports of Auckland Limited [2011] NZEMPC 160;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_6.pdf [pdf 55 KB] |