| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 92/06 |
| Hearing date | 20 Apr 2006 |
| Determination date | 23 June 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | ACB Cust (in person) ; P Shaw |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Cust v Manchester Irish Ltd t/a Sullivans |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Employment relationship deteriorated after performance issues raised by respondent - Two warnings given for abusive behaviour towards owner - Applicant suspended - Respondent prepared letter proposing meeting - Respondent allegedly told applicant not to enter business office - Applicant returned to work and entered office - Respondent later sent text message dismissing him - Applicant claimed lack of access to legal advice responsible for his failure to engage appropriately - Allegations of abuse by applicant of owner dealt with by warnings - Entry into office only basis for summary dismissal - Applicant not given opportunity to be heard on live issue - Fact that already warned did not excuse respondent's obligation to meet with applicant and give him opportunity to respond - Decision not what fair and reasonable employer would have made - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Authority accepted applicant did not emphasise reason he was unwilling to meet with owner was inability to obtain legal advice - Applicant indulged in abuse of owner - 100% contribution - Length of service seven years - Duty manager/doorman |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Statutes | ER Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson [2006] 1 ERNZ 415;New Zealand Food Processing etc IUOW v Unilever New Zealand Ltd [1990] 1 NZILR 35;W & H Newspapers v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 92_06.pdf [pdf 41 KB] |