| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 202/06 |
| Hearing date | 19 May 2006 |
| Determination date | 15 June 2006 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | G Froggatt ; G Cook |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pepe v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Respondent investigated passenger complaint that applicant acted in inappropriate manner, and failed in duty of care to ensure passenger safe - Complainant alleged she was approached by applicant's friend, and applicant later approached her and spoke in suggestive manner - Alleged bus went slightly off route - Applicant suspended pending investigation of the incident - Evidence of incident unclear - Authority had reservation that dismissal letter went too far since no precise evidence of applicant's participation in incident - Applicant's conduct essentially unacceptable - Respondent entitled to conclude complainant's account more credible - No material deviation from collective employment agreement (CEA") disciplinary procedure - Applicant had right under CEA to name witnesses relevant to investigation, however, respondent not obliged to advise of right - No disparity of treatment - Dismissal justified - Length of service not specified - Bus driver" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Northern Distribution Union v BP Oil NZ Limited [1992] 3 ERNZ 483 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 202_06.pdf [pdf 72 KB] |