| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 157 |
| Determination date | 09 May 2012 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | S Scott ; S Menzies |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Leitch v Crusader Meats New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found fair and reasonable employer would have concluded trust in applicant destroyed by applicant’s actions – Found applicant not given opportunity to communicate directly with manager who made final dismissal decision - Dismissal unjustified – REMEDIES - 50 per cent contributory conduct - Reinstatement plainly unworkable - Three months’ reimbursement of lost wages - $3,000 compensation appropriate - Technical Compliance Manager |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as technical compliance manager. Respondent claimed applicant had repeatedly refused to follow respondent instructions and disrespectful when dealing with management. Applicant told applicant’s team to ignore respondent general manager (“K”) instructions as team duties were not K’s management responsibility. Applicant told K did not need to report to K on details of applicant’s actions as had managerial prerogative and did not follow respondent human resources manager (“W”) instructions when dealing with team disciplinary matters. Applicant claimed had concerns about reporting lines but intended to eventually comply with respondent’s instructions. Applicant previously issued with final written warning. Investigation commenced. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed respondent’s investigation not impartial. Applicant sought reinstatement.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant’s instructions lawful and reasonable. Fair and reasonable employer would have concluded trust in applicant destroyed due to applicant’s refusal to comply with respondent’s instructions initially and comments applicant made to managers. Applicant’s actions serious misconduct as applicant did not follow K’s or W’s instructions and made sarcastic and abrasive comments to respondent senior management. Applicant created uncertainty for respondent on what instructions applicant would comply with. Managers involved in dismissal decision involved in incidents and decision could have been made by manager more removed from matter. Applicant not given opportunity to communicate directly with manager who made final dismissal decision. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 50 per cent contributory conduct. Reinstatement so plainly unworkable Authority did not need to determine whether new reinstatement test applied. Three months’ reimbursement of lost wages. $3,000 compensation appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted ; Contributory conduct (50%) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (12 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s124;ERA s128;ERA s174 |
| Cases Cited | BP Oil New Zealand Ltd v Northern Distribution Union [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;Corry v Clouston & Co Limited (1904) 7 GLR 213;Irvines Freightlines Ltd v Cross [1993] 1 ERNZ 424;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Sam’s Fukuyama Food Services Ltd v Zhang [2011] NZCA 608;Samuels v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [1995] 1 ERNZ 462;Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917;The Warehouse Ltd v Cooper [2000] 2 ERNZ 351;Thomas v Asurequality Ltd (No 2) [2012] NZERA Christchurch 4 |
| Number of Pages | 15 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_157.pdf [pdf 158 KB] |