| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 97/06 |
| Hearing date | 23 May 2006 |
| Determination date | 29 June 2006 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | B Ayrey ; B Nathan |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Iosefa v Canterbury Hospitality Group |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Respondent sought order that statements of witnesses be admitted - Witnesses not available for investigation meeting - Application lodged one year after dismissal - Respondent claimed had applicant progressed matter in timely fashion, witnesses would probably have been available - Unjust and inequitable to exclude hearsay evidence as was important to disposition of the matter - Evidence allowed - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Summary dismissal - Two disciplinary meetings held for separate incidents - First meeting about allegation applicant gave away drinks - Evidence equivocal on whether or not applicant given opportunity to have representative at first meeting - Applicant's explanation of incident not credible - Given final warning - Not persuaded allegation was not put to applicant clearly and that not given opportunity to dispute it if she chose to - On balance of probabilities first meeting not fundamentally flawed - Second meeting about applicant being discovered in management office with boyfriend by other employees while supposed to be working - Available to fair and reasonable employer to have reached conclusion applicant committed serious misconduct - Difficult to see what further inquiries respondent could have made - Dismissal justified - Length of service three years seven months with respondent and its predecessors - Bartender |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) 1980 s3 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 97_06.pdf [pdf 46 KB] |