| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 394/05 |
| Hearing date | 26 Jul 2005 |
| Determination date | 04 October 2005 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | B Rimmer ; P Tremewan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hireme v Acrow Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant and colleagues left work in middle of day to go to pub and did not return - Said it was hot and was applicant's birthday - No authorisation to depart from workplace - Alleged disparity of treatment compared to another employee who left work in middle of day a year after applicant's dismissal - Was disparity of treatment - Explanation given for disparity largely inadequate - Also, under House Rules, misconduct was probably in the category of less serious misconduct - Not open to dismiss under House Rules - Unjustified dismissal - Contributory conduct such that no remedies awarded - Scaffolder |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Samu [1994] 1 ERNZ 93;Airline Steward & Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air NZ Ltd [1985] ACJ 952;Cooke v Tranz Rail Ltd [1996] 1 ERNZ 610;Porter v Board of Trustees of Westlake Girls' High School [1998] 1 ERNZ 377 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 394_05.pdf [pdf 43 KB] |