Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2012] NZERA Auckland 112
Hearing date 16 Feb 2012 - 17 Feb 2012
Determination date 29 March 2012
Member R Larmer
Representation A Hammond, D Foster ; G Service, J Hardacre
Location Whangarei
Parties Robb v Transfield Services (New Zealand) Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Respondent claimed actions justified as applicant breached house rules by continually stealing diesel from excavators over nine month period – Respondent monitored fuel consumption of excavators operated by applicant as noticed difference in fuel usage between operators – Applicant asked to attend disciplinary meeting – Applicant and respondent branch manager (“H”) disputed whether applicant initiated proposal to attend meeting on same day as given notice to attend – Authority preferred H’s evidence that applicant initiated proposal – Found H attempted to discourage applicant from attending meeting on same say but applicant did not fully understand seriousness of issues because H had not disclosed sufficient information – H informed applicant that whatever excavator applicant had been using the fuel usage was two or three times what it was when same exactor used by another operator – H told applicant respondent believed applicant stealing diesel – Applicant claimed did not know what to say in response to H as in shock over allegation – Applicant claimed distracted by need to leave work early to attend funeral – H adjourned meeting and informed respondent regional manager (“M”) of intention to dismiss applicant – H dismissed applicant on basis applicant had no explanation for excessive amount of diesel used – Found respondent should have set out specific disciplinary allegations along with supporting evidence in initial disciplinary letter to applicant – Found applicant effectively deprived of genuine opportunity to consider and respond to allegation – Found respondent should have advised applicant of prospect of dismissal if allegation proven – Found respondent should have been sensitive to fact applicant due to attend funeral – Found respondent did not put specific concerns to applicant in clear manner – Found respondent breached good faith obligations – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – Applicant presented numerous possible explanations to explain fuel differential – Found discrepancies not satisfactorily explained by applicant – Found applicant significantly contributed to grievance – Found due to contribution applicant not entitled to lost remuneration – Applicant claimed placed under considerable stress and financial pressure due to dismissal – Found respondent acted in haste without any sensitivity to applicant’s personal situation – Found applicant’s allegation that had been blacklisted in industry due to respondent had some merit – $5,000 compensation appropriate – Excavator Operator
Result Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s4;ERA s4(1A);ERA s103A
Cases Cited Affco New Zealand Ltd v Nepia unreported, Shaw J, 28 September 2007, WC25/07;Airline Stewards and Hostesses of New Zealand IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584;Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Allen v Transpacific Industries Group Ltd (t/a Medismart Ltd") (2009) 6 NZELR 530;Hardie v Round (2008) 8 NZELC 99,317;Honda New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Boilermakers Union (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 855;Madden v New Zealand Railways Corporation [1991] 2 ERNZ 690;Nelson Air Ltd v New Zealand Airline Pilots Association [1994] 2 ERNZ 665;New Zealand (with exceptions) Food Processing IUOW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 582;Rooney Earthmoving Ltd v McTague [2009] ERNZ 240;Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley [2010] NZEmpC 52;X v Auckland District Health Board [2007] ERNZ 66"
Number of Pages 22
PDF File Link: 2012_NZERA_Auckland_112.pdf [pdf 102 KB]