| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 144/06 |
| Hearing date | 31 Jan 2006 - 16 Feb 2006 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 28 April 2006 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | C Bennett ; M Mulholland |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | McGeown v Manchester Property Care Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant claimed dismissal for disobeying lawful and reasonable instruction was procedurally and substantively unjustified - While arranging disciplinary meeting to discuss ongoing performance issues Manager reminded applicant not to talk to client about contract matters - Applicant did not agree with this but acknowledged it was clear that Manager did not want him discussing contracts with clients - Next day applicant approached CEO and Operations Manager of client about contract - Disciplinary meeting to discuss performance issues went ahead following day and applicant was advised issue was now serious misconduct for deliberately disobeying instruction from Manager - Applicant provided with opportunity to adjourn meeting to seek representation - Respondent said final written warning would be considered if applicant provided assurance he would work as directed in future - Applicant replied he was without contrition and felt no guilt over actions - Further meeting arranged in two days time and applicant suspended on pay pending resolution - Applicant aware prior to meeting that company regarded matter seriously and was given full opportunity to explain - Respondent carried out full and fair investigation - Instruction not to discuss contractual matters with clients was a lawful and reasonable instruction - Decision to dismiss was substantially fair and reasonable according to standards of fair-minded but not over-indulgent person - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant claimed disadvantaged by respondent's failure to consult over suspension - Raised for first time at investigation meeting - Outside 90 day time limit - No application for leave - Length of service six weeks - Cleaner/Custodian |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s114;ERA s115;ERA s122 |
| Cases Cited | Man O' War Farm Ltd v Bree [2003] 1 ERNZ 83;NZ Van Lines Ltd v Gray [1999] 1 ERNZ 85; [1999] 2 NZLR 397 (CA);NZ (with exceptions) Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever NZ Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 ; [2001] 3 NZLR 29;Wellington etc Clerical and Related Workers v College Group Limited [1984] ACJ 315 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 144_06.pdf [pdf 39 KB] |