| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 65/06 |
| Hearing date | 31 Jan 2006 |
| Determination date | 18 April 2006 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | M Williams ; K Sagaga |
| Location | Napier |
| Parties | Katipa-Martinussen v Hohepa Homes Trust Board Inc |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant took resident of centre for intellectually disabled back to applicant’s own home for number of days after informing “house parents” and residential coordinator – Left resident in care of others for short periods - Called manager a “dick” in conversation with co-worker - On later occasion applicant left scheduled work duties to attend meeting with resident - Disciplinary investigation resulted in final warning - Applicant refused to accept warning – Failure to follow correct procedures for removal of resident from site and placement of resident in care of others when knew permission from higher authority needed clearly misconduct – Discourtesy to co-worker by abusing manager not enough by itself to justify warning – However, warning for discourtesy justified when taken in association with other failures – Insufficient evidence to justify warning for absenting herself from work duties without authorisation to meet with client – Fair and reasonable employer would not have considered actions amounted to serious misconduct – Respondent accepted applicant always acted with good motives and without intent to pose risk to health and safety of resident – Clear grounds to conclude circumstances in which resident removed from site resulted from miscommunication – Removal authorised by residential coordinator and house parents failed to pass on message that removal only authorised for one weekend at most – Only left resident in care of reliable people closely associated with respondent – In all circumstances first warning would have been justified but not final warning for serious misconduct – Remedies – Applicant’s behaviour clearly amounted to contributory fault – Modest compensation appropriate – Length of service five years - Vocational careworker for intellectually disabled |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($1,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 |
| Cases Cited | Honda NZ Ltd v NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc IUOW [1991] 1 NZLR 392;Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil NZ Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 65_06.pdf [pdf 42 KB] |