| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 188/04 |
| Hearing date | 18 Mar 2004 |
| Determination date | 28 May 2004 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | L Johnson ; J Rooney |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pairama v Firth Industries Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for leave to file out of time - Serious misconduct - Complaints about careless driving by driver of one of respondent's trucks - Respondent determined driver in question was applicant - Investigation into incident - Previous final written warning - Applicant dismissed - Applicant alleged delay caused because thought union was bringing claim - Applicant filed claim almost 6 months after received advice union were not pursuing claim applicant filed claim - Alleged unable to find representation - Explanation unsatisfactory - Whether exceptional circumstances - Merits of case looked at to determine if just to grant leave - Incidents capable of providing substantive grounds for dismissal - Respondent justified in believing applicant was driver at issue - Grievance could not have succeeded - Not just to proceed - If leave to proceed was granted, would have found dismissal justified - Truck driver |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s114(1);ERA s114(3) |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |