| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Wellington 13 |
| Hearing date | 6 Dec 2012 |
| Determination date | 30 January 2013 |
| Member | T MacKinnon |
| Representation | J Crengle ; P Shaw |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Eparaima v Armstrong Prestige Wellington Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision to issue written warning – Applicant claimed behaviour leading to warning caused by stress resulting from respondent’s actions - Authority found respondent properly considered applicant’s explanation regarding behaviour before issuing warning – Found respondent believed important to make clear applicant’s behaviour not acceptable – Found warning justified in all circumstances at the time - No unjustified disadvantage - Mechanic |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as mechanic. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision to issue written warning. Applicant purchased tools from colleague after colleague announced leaving country suddenly. Following purchase colleague disappeared, owing respondent money. Respondent asked applicant for tools for cost recovery and offered to reimburse applicant. Respondent informed applicant of police and foreign consulate involvement which applicant interpreted as pressure to return tools. Respondent told applicant could deduct cost of tools from wages but respondent claimed comment not taken seriously by applicant. Respondent announced to staff weekly drinks funded by respondent suspended as items removed from workshop. Applicant felt respondent’s actions implied applicant dishonest. On same day applicant swore loudly at supervisor using obscene language. Applicant called to disciplinary meeting and issued with written warning for outburst. Applicant claimed suffered stress caused by respondent’s actions prior to event and respondent did not account for this. Respondent claimed stress did not justify applicant’s behaviour. Respondent claimed applicant’s behaviour beyond what normally occurred in workplace.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE: Respondent properly considered applicant’s explanation before concluding explanation did not justify applicant’s behaviour. Respondent believed important to make clear applicant’s behaviour not acceptable and applicant needed to be respectful and professional in dealings with other staff. Warning a rehabilitative tool rather than a punitive one and justified in all circumstances at the time. No unjustified disadvantage. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Trotter v Telecom Corp of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Wellington_13.pdf [pdf 168 KB] |