| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 61 |
| Hearing date | 15 Nov 2011 |
| Determination date | 20 February 2012 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | G Bennett ; J Phipps |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Here v McAlpine Hussman Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by respondent – Respondent team leader (“M”) and applicant had verbal argument when applicant failed to perform M’s work instruction – M claimed was threatened by applicant – Applicant told respondent factory manager (“A”) that M was always following applicant around and had longstanding issue – M claimed since promoted applicant had been resisting taking instructions and was not working well – Applicant had received previous warning for swearing at M – A suspended applicant on full pay until date of enquiry due to threatening behaviour – Applicant wrote apology letter for M – Applicant told to attend disciplinary meeting to discuss alleged threat – Applicant accepted made threatening remark but guaranteed A that similar incident would not happen again – Applicant dismissed – A did not think applicant could work with M again and there was nowhere else to move applicant – Applicant claimed disadvantaged on basis that was called to disciplinary meeting and told not entitled to support person at disciplinary meeting – Applicant claimed received no grounds for suspension – Authority found applicant knew what disciplinary meeting was about – Found nothing disadvantageous about applicant attending disciplinary meeting – Found respondent did not provide applicant with reasons for suspension – Found, however, applicant did not provide evidence about how was disadvantaged and so no remedies could be awarded – Found A and respondent human resources manager had authority to dismiss applicant – Found investigation into argument was fair – Found had it not been for previous warning applicant’s dismissal likely unjustified – Dismissal justified – No disadvantage |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v V [2009] ERNZ 185 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_61.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |