| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 51/06 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jan 2006 |
| Determination date | 06 April 2006 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | A McKenzie ; G Pollak |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Angel and Anor v Fonterra Co-operative Group |
| Other Parties | Hutton |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicants summarily dismissed after respondent found they had breached a Critical Control Point (CCP") in production process - Packing plant had reject arm mechanism that was automatically activated if metal was detected in bag or bag not correct weight - Respondent became aware reject arm was sometimes turned off and conducted investigation - Applicants admitted to disabling reject arm while packing stock food - Recheck of 974 bags of stock food detected metal in 26 bags and found 175 bags were incorrect weight - At disciplinary meetings applicants alleged they were not aware reject arm was part of CCP - Later that day applicants dismissed - Alleged predetermination - More likely than not respondent prepared dismissal letters using template which explained their identical wording - Hours between disciplinary meetings and dismissal ample time to consider applicants' explanations - First applicant not deprived of representation as result of respondent's refusal to grant adjournment to enable arrival of his preferred representative - Fair investigation process - Whether applicants' actions capable of constituting serious misconduct - Applicants alleged that under collective employment agreement respondent was restricted to issuing first warning for breach of product safety procedures - Authority of strong view this was matter of negligence - Reject arm comprised integral element of CCP and applicants compromised respondent's process by disabling reject arm - New Zealand's food safety regulations established by statute and failure to observe regulations could have dire consequences for organisations - Not difficult to understand need for very high level of trust and confidence residing in people such as applicants who were controlling critical processes - Fair and reasonable employer in statutory environment would likely have come to conclusion that applicants' actions were capable of constituting serious misconduct - Alleged disparity of treatment - Applicants treated differently from two workers who undertook similar actions but reasonable for respondent to differentiate given other workers' relative inexperience and fact no contaminants were found in bags - Justified dismissals - Length of service with respondent and predecessors 8 years (first applicant) and 10 years (second applicant) - Senior Packing and Blending Operators" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | W&H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 51_06.pdf [pdf 56 KB] |