| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 135 |
| Hearing date | 3 & 11 March 2016 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 03 May 2016 |
| Member | Andrew Dallas |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; R Webster |
| Location | Whangarei / Auckland |
| Parties | Harris v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Applicant allegedly wrote ‘scab’ on colleague’s locker – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Expert evidence – Whether witness expert – Meat worker |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Respondent’s investigation of allegations procedurally unfair. Respondent did not properly consult applicant during investigation. Respondent not open minded. Important evidence missed. No independent corroboration of employer’s evidence. Defects in process not minor and resulted in applicant treated unfairly. Respondent did not have proper and substantive basis for dismissal. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Reinstatement ordered subject to conditions. Respondent to pay applicant three months reimbursement of lost wages. $7,500 compensation for humiliation etc appropriate.;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Respondent could reasonably have obtained expert advice on handwriting prior to decision to dismiss. Respondent’s witness not expert within meaning of s4(1) Evidence Act 2004. Respondent failed to put expert evidence about handwriting to Authority. Applicant’s expert evidence preferred. |
| Result | Application granted ; Reinstatement ordered ; Reimbursement of lost wages (three months) ; Compensation for humiliation ($7,500) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s11(1);ERA s103(2);ERA s103A;ERA s103A(3)(a);ERA s103A(3)(b);ERA s103A(3)(c);ERA s103A(3)(d);ERA s103A(5);ERA s123(1)(a);ERA s123(1)(b);ERA s123(1)(c)(i);ERA s124;ERA s125;ERA s125(2);ERA s128(3);ERA s174E;ERA Second Schedule cl2(1)(b);Evidence Act 2004, s4(1) |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (No 2) [2011] NZEmpC 160, [2011] ERNZ 466;A Ltd v H [2015] NZCA 99;De Bruin v Canterbury District Health Board [2012] NZEmpC 110, [2012] ERNZ 431;Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 135, (2015) NZELR 1George v Auckland Council [2014] NZCA;Goel v Director-General for Primary Industries [2015] NZEmpC 54;H v A Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 189;Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 29;Harris v Warehouse Ltd[2014] NZEmpC 188, [2014] ERNZ 480;Housham v Juken New Zealand Ltd [2007] ERNZ 183 (EmpC);Howard v Carter Holt Harvey Packaging Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 157 (EmpC);Kereopa v Go Bus Transport Ltd (2009) 7 NZELR 4 (EmpC);New Core Properties Ltd v Lee [2015] NZHC 2120;NPNZ Investments Ltd v Nelson HC Hamilton, CIV-2010-419-692, 15 June 2010;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 (EmpC);Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 34;Tan v Yang [2014] NZEmpC 65, [2014] ERNZ 733;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 38 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_135_amended.pdf [pdf 1.3 MB] |