| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 320 |
| Hearing date | 28 Mar 2012 - 29 Mar 2012 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 12 September 2012 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | H White ; D France |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Watson v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Use of identity card to access security area for reasons other than applicant’s duties – Whether applicant sarcastic to other company’s agent – Whether applicant responsible for late departure of flight and failed to disclose involvement to manager – Whether applicant’s conduct brought respondent into disrepute – Whether applicant remorseful – Alleged attempt to board aircraft – Air bridge – Boarding of aircraft delayed while possible security breach investigated – Breach of security protocols – Safety sensitive – Failure to suspend applicant – Length of investigation – Alleged disparity of treatment – Failure to consider demotion – Flight service manager |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant breached identity card’s conditions of use. Respondent entitled to conclude applicant sarcastic. Respondent entitled to conclude applicant contributed to delay of applicant’s flight and applicant’s failure to identify own actions as cause of delay or report to manager did not accord with leadership expected of flight service manager. Respondent entitled to conclude applicant failed to maintain and promote respondent’s image. Applicant’s remorse concerned with effect of conduct rather than conduct itself. Applicant’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct. Respondent’s decision not to suspend applicant in itself did not mean applicant’s conduct less serious than respondent claimed. Delay in investigation and disparity of treatment with other employees explained adequately. Respondent’s failure to consider demotion did not make dismissal unjustified. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | Civil Aviation Act 1990;Civil Aviation Rules;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ERNZ 415;Buchanan v Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue [2006] ERNZ 512;Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue v Buchanan (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 767;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;Samu v Air New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 ERNZ 636;Secretary For Justice v Dodd (2010) 7 NZELR 578 |
| Number of Pages | 28 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_320.pdf [pdf 901 KB] |