| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 140 |
| Hearing date | 7 Feb 2012 - 8 Feb 2012 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 20 April 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | G MacDonald ; J Douglas |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Schriffer v First Security Guard Services Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant supervised prisoner (“X”) during court appearance – X made abusive comments to public gallery – Applicant ordered to remove X from court – Several hours later applicant attended X in cell to escort X to truck for transport back to prison – X informed by applicant could not take sandwiches back to prison and ordered to surrender sandwiches – X refused to comply – Applicant removed sandwiches by force – X restrained by applicant and other officers - Incident reported to respondent – Respondent gathered reports from those present – Investigation commenced – Respondent claimed applicant provoked X and used inappropriate language – Applicant informed respondent at meeting that applicant in process of getting legal advice – Disciplinary meeting held a week later without applicant’s support person – Authority found applicant consented to meeting proceeding – Found applicant accepted during meeting swore at X – At applicant’s suggestion respondent obtained report from X – Respondent claimed incident caused by applicant’s use of inflammatory language when attempted to remove sandwiches – Respondent claimed applicant used inappropriate force to remove sandwiches and created situation where restraint of X necessary – Respondent claimed applicant threatened to go ‘one on one’ with X in cells – Respondent claimed applicant not compelled to use force and mismanaged incident to extent that respondent’s trust and confidence in applicant undermined – Respondent claimed incident serious misconduct – Applicant dismissed – Applicant claimed X already agitated following removal from court – Applicant claimed not provided with notes of meetings – Respondent claimed understood applicant in process of obtaining legal advice and waited to provide notes to counsel – Found respondent conducted thorough and detailed investigation, provided applicant opportunity to respond and considered applicant’s views – Found respondent should have provided applicant with meeting notes when clear applicant did not obtain legal advice but result would have been same – Found respondent right to reject significance of X’s removal from court as applicant admitted X not agitated with applicant – Found large amount of evidence supported respondent’s conclusions – Found respondent’s decision to dismiss applicant one of fair and reasonable employer – Dismissal justified – Security officer |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 94,015;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley (2011) 9 NZELC 93,782 |
| Number of Pages | 14 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |