| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 71/05 |
| Hearing date | 19 Apr 2005 |
| Determination date | 18 May 2005 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | R Thompson ; W van Harselaar |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Chitongo v Roberts |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Dispute between parties over whether dismissed or resigned - Applicant was dismissed - Applicant made mistakes while milking - Applicant's experience meant he should not have made those mistakes - Did not respond to respondent when asked for explanation - Not reasonable to treat request for explanation as lawful and reasonable instruction - Situation called for cooling off period - Not warned that might be dismissed for failure to comply with instruction - Not allowed opportunity to explain - Dismissal unjustified - PENALTY - No breach of s130(1) Employment Relations Act 2000 - Breach of s103(2) not sufficiently serious to merit imposition of penalty |
| Result | Application granted (Unjustified dismissal) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($6,000 reduced to $5,000) ; Application dismissed (Penalty) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s120;ERA s130 |
| Cases Cited | Ashton v Shoreline Hotel [1994] 1 ERNZ 421;NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;W & H Newspapers Limited v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 71_05.pdf [pdf 29 KB] |