Restrictions Includes non-publication order
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2012] NZERA Christchurch 99
Hearing date 21 Feb 2012
Determination date 22 May 2012
Member P Cheyne
Representation P Brown ; S WIlson
Location Christchurch
Parties Wareing v Tyco New Zealand Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Authority found respondent sufficiently investigated allegations and gave applicant reasonable opportunity to comment - Found fair and reasonable employer could have dismissed applicant - Dismissal justified
Abstract Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant claimed had heated discussion with respondent team leader (H") about prioritising workload, accepted had used inappropriate words but claimed entitled to challenge H's instructions. Applicant claimed under stress at time due to Christchurch earthquake and had heavy workload. Applicant called H same day and resigned but later told respondent had decided not to resign. Respondent claimed applicant had refused to follow reasonable instructions and had abused other employees. Respondent claimed applicant had destroyed respondent's trust and confidence in applicant. Investigation commenced and applicant dismissed. Applicant given opportunity to explain actions. Applicant apologised for swearing but claimed not directed at any employee in particular.;AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority ordered non-publication of sections of psychologist's report. Respondent sufficiently investigated allegations and gave applicant reasonable opportunity to comment. Respondent properly considered applicant's explanations. Applicant aware respondent would not condone abusive language at workplace. Fair and reasonable employer could have dismissed applicant. Dismissal justified."
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A
Cases Cited Coffey v Christchurch Press [2008] ERNZ 385;Dodd v D E And L M Spence Ltd t/a Pak 'N' Save [2002] 2 ERNZ 572;W&H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29
Number of Pages 10
PDF File Link: 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_99.pdf [pdf 45 KB]