| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 161 |
| Hearing date | 7-8 Apr 2014 |
| Determination date | 28 April 2014 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | G Bennet ; G Cain |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Muthu v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed imprisoned unlawfully by respondent during disciplinary meeting and unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Whether applicant failed to record high risk tool musters completed, failed to complete required high risk tool musters and failed to physically check high risk tools cabinet at end of shift despite indicating all high risk tools accounted for - Missing knife - Spring Hill correctional facility - Previous written warning for discrepancies in time sheet - Suspension - Security and safety breach - Catering instructor |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority ordered non-publication of prisoner's identity. Applicant knew that doors at correctional facility could be opened from inside even though doors needed to be unlocked from outside. Applicant did not have reasonable belief not free to leave meeting. Applicant not imprisoned unlawfully. Applicant understood rationale behind operating procedures. Respondent's conclusion applicant failed to follow procedures supported by applicant's admissions. Applicant failed to follow procedures designed to ensure safety and wellbeing of employees and staff and falsified records deliberately to indicate required checks carried out. Reasonable for respondent to conclude applicant's actions serious misconduct. Applicant advised of allegations and right to representation. Applicant provided with opportunity to address issues and respondent conducted comprehensive investigation. Respondent provided all requested documentation, made CCTV footage available and responded to and considered issues raised by applicant. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Applications dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA Second Schedule cl10(1);New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s22 |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] ERNZ 466;Everitt v Attorney-General [2002] 1 NZLR 82;R v Koops (2002) 19 CRNZ 309;R v M [1995] 1 NZLR 242 |
| Number of Pages | 25 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_161.pdf [pdf 342 KB] |