| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 221 |
| Hearing date | 16 May 2012 |
| Determination date | 28 June 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | M Paewai ; R Upton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Looker v AG Walter and Sons Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found respondent entitled to truncate process in cases of apparent serious misconduct – Found applicant failed to raise concerns about evidence and process with respondent at disciplinary meeting – Found respondent conducted proper investigation and gave applicant proper opportunity to be heard – Dismissal justified – Truck driver |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as truck driver. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant subject to allegation by co-worker (“P”) that applicant drinking alcohol on job. No action taken against applicant. P alleged applicant threatened to injure P and kill P’s dogs. At disciplinary meeting applicant denied allegations. Applicant dismissed. Applicant claimed evidence gathered by respondent insufficient and P biased against applicant. Applicant claimed did not get on with union delegate who represented applicant at disciplinary meeting and denied opportunity to be represented by applicant’s preferred representative. Applicant claimed witness (“L”) offered to give different evidence to Authority but maintained original account due to duress by respondent.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent entitled to truncate process in cases of apparent serious misconduct. Respondent gathered sufficient evidence to put allegation to applicant for comment. Even if P biased against applicant, applicant did not communicate concerns to respondent at disciplinary meeting. Applicant made no effort to tell respondent at disciplinary meeting applicant wanted different representative. No evidence to suggest respondent exercised any undue influence over L. Respondent conducted proper investigation and gave applicant proper opportunity to be heard. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3) |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 94,015 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_221.pdf [pdf 171 KB] |