| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 59 |
| Hearing date | 23 & 24 Mar 2016 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 12 May 2016 |
| Member | Helen Doyle |
| Representation | P Churchman ; R Webster |
| Location | Invercargill |
| Parties | Murray v South Pacific Meats Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by accusations of misconduct, suspension without pay and written warning – Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed - PENALTY – GOOD FAITH – Applicant sought penalty for breach of good faith – Slaughter person |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Although allegation of misconduct quickly accepted as incorrectly recorded by respondent, allegation still taken into account when deciding to suspend applicant. Applicant disadvantaged. Applicant not consulted on decision to suspend. Pre-written letter indicated degree of pre-determination. Respondent refused to delay disciplinary meeting when applicant requested representation. Fair and reasonable employer could not be concerned about distribution of union material in circumstances. Fair and reasonable employer could not have concluded in circumstances appropriate to suspend applicant without pay. Suspension procedurally and substantively unjustified. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged. Union member distributing union material would not normally be considered serious misconduct. No policy about conduct about distributing union material. Applicant not aware that distributing newsletter would be seen as serious misconduct. Fair and reasonable employer could not have concluded serious misconduct and given formal written warning. Respondent unjustifiably failed to call applicant back for bobby calf season. Applicant disadvantaged by losing out on wages. Applicant unjustifiably disadvantaged. Applicant person intending to work for next season. Respondent failed to deal in good faith with applicant and make further inquiries about applicant’s intention to work. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: No contributory conduct. Respondent to pay applicant $17,400 reimbursement of lost wages. $10,000 compensation appropriate.PENALTY – GOOD FAITH: Respondent failed to respond to applicant’s representative about applicant’s concerns. Applicant raised concerns in accordance with employment agreement. Respondent breached good faith. Breach intended to undermine employment relationship. $2,500 penalty appropriate. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($17,400) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Penalty ($2,500)(payable to applicant) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4 ; ERA s4(1A)(a) ; ERA s4(1A)(b) ; ; ERA s103A(3) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland City Council v Hennessey [1982] ACJ 6994 (CA) ; Blylevens v Kidicorp Ltd [2014] NZERA Auckland 373 ; E N Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers [2000] 2 ERNZ 97 (CA) ; Kruskopf v South Pacific Meats Ltd [2016] NZERA Christchurch 60 ; Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 (CA) ; Tag Oil (NZ) Ltd v Watchorn [2014] NZERA Wellington 58 |
| Number of Pages | 26 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_59.pdf [pdf 309 KB] |