| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 98/06 |
| Hearing date | 18 Apr 2005 - 20 Apr 2005 (3 days) |
| Determination date | 03 July 2006 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | A Little ; P Kiely, D Erickson |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Bisson and Ors v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Other Parties | Gardner, Cameron, King |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Review of 120 days internet use of all employees in respondent's Engineering Services Division - Respondent engaged specialist who produced individual internet user reports (IURs") - IURs indicated that first applicant B had 4,008 site visits involving 32 hours browsing time, second applicant G had 8,303 site visits involving 43 hours 53 minutes browsing time, third applicant C had 2,059 site visits involving 31 hours 29 minutes browsing time, and fourth applicant K had 12,857 site visits involving 60 hours 34 minutes browsing time - Formal disciplinary meetings with each applicant - All summarily dismissed for spending excessive time on internet during work time for non work-related purposes, accessing inappropriate sites, and sharing computer password in direct violation of company policy - Applicants denied knowledge of email and internet usage policies - Applicants admitted some personal-interest use of internet but denied personally and intentionally visiting adult/sexually explicit sites - K admitted visiting dating sites and C admitted visiting lingerie sites in search of gifts for his wife - Failure by respondent to fully investigate extent to which practice of sharing log ons and passwords or the leaving work station open prevailed in workplace at time - Authority accepted respondent's evidence that practice not condoned - However K gave evidence that local logistics manager gave own access details to K and this not refuted by respondent - All applicants told respondent they had given passwords to others for operational reasons and several indicated that they had been instructed to do so - No certainty that each applicant personally accessed all or any of explicit sites found on IURs - Authority accepted that at time of investigation and on face of IUR evidence manager found applicants' explanations "not credible" - However that judgment could only be made after fully investigating information provided by applicants - Respondent admitted it failed to consider alternatives to summary dismissal as provided for in company policy - Respondent failed to ensure that those granted access to email and internet were provided with terms of access at time - Notices on staff notice boards and indirect link to reminders on intranet were no substitute for full and unequivocal induction process - Respondent's allegation that allowing access to IT systems formed contract with applicants failed because respondent granted IT access without advising applicants of obligations under so-called contract - Respondent failed to take into account B's long length of service (32 years) and recent commendation - Unjustified dismissals - G's length of service four years, C's and K's length of service three years each - Charge hand and stores function workers" |
| Result | Application granted ; Reinstatement ordered (all applicants) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($23,040)(B) ; ($13,768)(G) ; ($17,134)(C) ; ($6,754)(K) (4 months less earnings); Compensation for humiliation etc ($7,000)(B); ($3,000)(G, C and K) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Cliff v Air New Zealand Ltd unreported, J Scott, 1 June 2005, AA 1A/05;Groom v Air New Zealand Ltd unreported, J Scott, 2 Jun 2005, AA 1B/05;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 |
| Number of Pages | 24 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 98_06.pdf [pdf 149 KB] |