| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 68/04 |
| Determination date | 26 February 2004 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | R Towns, P David ; G Davenport |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | James v New Zealand Fire Service Commission, a body corporate constituted by section 4 of the Fire Service Act 1975 |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Two incidents occurred whilst on duty - First conducted personal business at rental property and involved in altercation - Other party complained - Second obtained trespass order and served it at another rental property - Requested crew to assist in removing another's belongings from property - Applicant viewed activities as acceptable examples of attending personal affairs whilst on duty or 'homers' - Respondent did not agree homers that flexible - Formal investigation and dismissal - Weight of evidence did not support applicant's minimisation of activities - Strict adherence to disciplinary procedures set out not required - Investigation transparent, fair and thorough - No legal requirement employer allow employee to confront person who made complaint - Finding of serious misconduct open to respondent - Alternatives to dismissal carefully considered - Dismissal justified - Fire service station officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | BP Oil NZ Ltd v Northern Distribution Workers Union [1989] 3 NZILR 276 ; [1989] 3 NZLR 580;New Zealand Fire Service v New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union unreported, RA Monaghan, 6 July 2001, AA 65/01;Petersen v Board of Trustees Of Buller High School [2002] 1 ERNZ 139;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |