Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2016] NZERA Auckland 254
Hearing date 22/07/2016
Determination date 26 July 2016
Member Tania Tetitaha
Representation K Fayen; M Kamphorst
Location Auckland
Parties Page-Smith v Drillforce New Zealand Ltd
Summary UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious Misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – COSTS – Applicant sought contribution to costs - Driller
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Conduct took place outside work. Required nexus between dismissal conduct and impact on employer’s business not evidenced. Insufficient evidence for respondent to conclude behaviour serious misconduct. Respondent did not properly raise concerns with applicant or provide all relevant information, so no opportunity for applicant to respond or have explanation considered. Dismissal unjustified. REMEDIES: 50 per cent contributory conduct. $2,500 compensation appropriate.;COSTS: Half day investigation meeting. Appropriate to apply notional daily tariff. Respondent to pay applicant $1,750 contribution to costs.
Result Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,750)
Main Category Personal Grievance
Statutes ERA s103A(2);ERA s103A(3);ERA s114;ERA s124
Cases Cited Goodfellow v Building Connexion Ltd t/a ITM Building Centre [2010] NZEmpC 82;Hallwright v Forsyth Barr [2013] NZEmpC 202;Makatoa v Restaurant Brands (NZ) Ltd [1999] 2 ERNZ 311 (EmpC);Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 (CA);Smith v Christchurch Press Company Ltd [2001] 1 NZLR 407 (CA)
Number of Pages 7
PDF File Link: 2016_ NZERA_ Auckland_ 254.pdf [pdf 220 KB]