| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 319/04 |
| Hearing date | 13 Aug 2004 - 19 Aug 2004 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 28 September 2004 |
| Member | K Raureti |
| Representation | H White ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Broderick v Pilkington (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Refusal to obey lawful instruction - Applicant refused to attend regular monthly meetings - Alleged genuine dispute about application and interpretation of employment agreement surrounding hours of work and overtime clauses - Respondent aware applicant believed respondent could not require him to attend meeting - Questioning hours of work could not be categorised as raising dispute - Not satisfied bona fide dispute raised - Procedural unfairness because applicant not told dismissal possibility - Applicant's position compromised by being unable to have chosen representative - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Refusal to attend meeting catalyst which resulted in dismissal - Contributory conduct 40% - Reinstatement declined because of blameworthy conduct and employment history - Driver/storeman |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($13,364 reduced to $8,018)(26 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation, etc ($4,500 reduced to $2,700) |
| Cases Cited | Drummond v Coca-Cola Bottlers NZ Ltd [1995] 2 ERNZ 229;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan [1998] 3 ERNZ 917 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |