| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 435/05 |
| Hearing date | 4 Aug 2005 - 7 Sep 2005 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 04 November 2005 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | T Oldfield ; A Caisley |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Barrett v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Failure to comply with requirements for sending personal cargo pursuant to staff concession - Applicant sent gift package to family in Samoa - Left package at home of cousin who later brought it to airport - Cousin added two cans of aerosol spray without knowing they were classified as dangerous goods - Applicant signed declaration stating were no dangerous or hazardous goods - Aerosols detected during routine x-ray - Investigation resulted in dismissal - Not a simple matter of dismissal of long-serving employee for inadvertent error - Applicant very careless in preparation of package - Alleged disparity of treatment with another employee who was not dismissed for similar actions - Other employee from different class of employees - Was remorseful while applicant continued to maintain error was minor - Dismissal justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Warning - Final written warning was given following complaints about applicant's behaviour towards younger colleague - Failure to put to application relevant information - Breach of company's disciplinary policy - Information not put to applicant for comment was significant - Compensation award took into account extent applicant contributed to circumstances - Unjustified disadvantage |
| Result | Application dismissed (Unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted ; (Unjustified disadvantage) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($3,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Fuiava v Air New Zealand Ltd unreported, J Wilson, 20 October 2005, AA 422/05;Samu v Air New Zealand [1995] 1 ERNZ 636 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 435_05.pdf [pdf 69 KB] |