| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 89/06 |
| Hearing date | 22 Mar 2006 - 23 Mar 2006 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 19 June 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | C French ; P Jagose |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Moynihan v New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Summary dismissal - Alleged failure to comply with respondent's safety policy - Applicant hooked crane up to platform without waiting for instructions - Whether investigation fair and proper - Authority troubled by number of failures by respondent - Issues surrounding first meeting between parties, especially respondent's failure to insist applicant had representative present -Applicant not involved in reconstruction of incident - Respondent unable to accurately establish distance platform moved - Fair and reasonable employer would then have considered applicant's intention to establish what happened, and level of culpability - Respondent's strong health and safety culture relevant factor in balancing procedural deficits - Investigation procedurally flawed - Remedies - Reinstatement ordered - Compensation for humiliation reduced for significant contribution - Applicant did not comply with policy even though plainly understood it - Length of service 20 years - Crane operator |
| Result | Application granted ; Reinstatement ordered ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($36,000)(12 months) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,500) ; Cost reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A, Employment Relations Amendment Act (No2) 2004 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson [2006] ELB 99;New Zealand (with exceptions) Food Processing IUOW v Unilever [1990] 1 NZILR 35;W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2001] 3 NZLR 29 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 89_06.pdf [pdf 58 KB] |