| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 233 |
| Hearing date | 28 Mar 2014 |
| Determination date | 12 June 2014 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | D Dunsmuir (in person) ; R Nabney |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Dunsmuir v Butlin and Butlin t/a Butlin Farm Partnership |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent - Whether applicant let penicillin contaminate milk vat - Whether applicant failed to pay power bill for farm house - Whether applicant failed to comply with instruction not to let person under 16 ride on quad bike - Whether applicant burned rubbish during fire ban - Whether applicant failed to check stock had adequate water - Milker |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Applicant not given reasonable opportunity to respond to concern about payment of power bill. Applicant instructed not to allow son to ride quad bike at all rather than son being allowed to ride bike if helping with farm-related work. Respondent reasonably and honestly believed accounts from witnesses that applicant's son drove quad bike on own. Respondent investigated quad bike allegation sufficiently and considered applicant's explanation genuinely. Respondent did not investigate fire allegation sufficiently in order to conclude applicant responsible for fire during fire ban. Applicant aware stock at off-farm paddock and that applicant responsible for stock. Respondent had nothing more to investigate regarding checking of stock. Respondent may not have been able to justify dismissing applicant on basis of single error in milking shed but in all circumstances fair and reasonable employer could have concluded no longer trusted applicant to do what applicant asked to do. Respondent could conclude no real trust applicant would not continue to breach instructions and could have decided applicant's failure to stop son's quad bike use serious misconduct. Applicant's failure to carry out simple task of checking water trough could have deeply impaired respondent's trust and confidence in applicant. Respondent could have decided to dismiss applicant based on concerns about milk contamination, quad bike use and checking of stock. Shortcomings relating to investigation of power bill payment and breach of fire ban did not result in applicant being treated unfairly. Arrangement for final outcome to be communicated to applicant without applicant's input as to penalty agreed between parties' representatives. Direction for applicant to vacate house immediately caused distress but arrangements made promptly for reasonable time and assistance for applicant to move out. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3);ERA s174 |
| Cases Cited | Angel v Fonterra Co-operative Group [2006] ERNZ 1080;Click Clack International Ltd v James [1994] 1 ERNZ 15;Makatoa v Restaurant Brands (NZ) Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 311;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_233.pdf [pdf 237 KB] |