| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 303/05 |
| Hearing date | 11 May 2005 - 12 May 2005 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 12 August 2005 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | AM McInally ; P Kiely |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lindsay v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd t/a CHH Futurebuild |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Warnings given about misconduct - First warning about behaviour towards team leader (G") and co-workers - Applicant disagreed with instruction of G and did not accept explanations - G entitled to take view that applicant was baiting him - Length and number of smoko breaks also a source of conflict between applicant and G - Disciplinary process - When G offered to provide examples of behaviour applicant said he did not want to know - Applicant did not provide explanations - Appeal against first warning upheld - Further allegation that applicant was speaking about management in a manner intended to undermine them - Applicant said communications were between employees about union matters and not employer's business - Counselling letter written instead of warning referring to relationship issues - Final written warning given for unacceptable conduct - Refusal to follow instructions about operation of dryer - Applicant genuinely believed that he knew better than G about operation of dryer - Complaint from co-worker about applicant's conduct towards him - Regarding first warning, G should not have acted as both complainant and judge - Otherwise first warning justified - Whether final warning could stand independently of first warning - Dismissal justified - Reinstatement sought - Dryer controller" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Northern Distribution Union v Armourguard Security Ltd [1989] 3 NZILR 262 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 303_05.pdf [pdf 65 KB] |