| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 31 |
| Hearing date | 18 Oct 2011 |
| Determination date | 04 April 2012 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | G Ogilvie ; L Stewart |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Green v C3 Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant requested mechanic conduct inspection of vehicle - Applicant did not check with mechanic after inspection and had accident in vehicle next day – Applicant discovered pin had come loose on vehicle and had caused damage – Applicant suspended and investigation commenced – Authority found as applicant did not question procedure when suspended likely applicant accepted suspension – Applicant had opportunity to respond to statements from employees who had witnessed accident at meeting – Applicant claimed did not understand had right to bring support person – Found even if applicant did not understand could bring support person had time to make enquiries – Found respondent overlooked applicant’s summary of events – Applicant denied would have noticed pin coming loose - Applicant claimed pin had come loose before and had been fixed by mechanic - Found applicant not given opportunity to respond to respondent’s conclusion applicant ought to have noticed pin coming loose much earlier – Found applicant did not admit to fault at disciplinary meeting – Respondent claimed applicant failed to check vehicle before started work and had taken serious safety risks - Applicant dismissed – Found suspension of applicant justified in circumstances and applicant aware of right to appeal decision – Found respondent did not tell applicant respondent’s conclusion applicant ought to have noticed pin coming loose based on evidence of senior operator and manager – Found as applicant unaware of evidence respondent relied on had no opportunity to ensure information accurate – Found respondent failed to consider applicant’s explanation or speak to mechanic – Found fair and reasonable employer would not have concluded applicant negligent as evidence inconclusive – Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES – 20 per cent contributory conduct - $9,969 reimbursement of lost wages - $4,800 compensation appropriate - Driver Machine Operator |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (20%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($9,969.41) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($4,800) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan [2005] ERNZ 767;Honda New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Boilermakers Union (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 855 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_31.pdf [pdf 63 KB] |