| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 92/01 |
| Determination date | 18 December 2001 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | M Andrews ; J Reardon |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Mepham v Chief Executive Palmerston North City Council |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Alleged assaulted colleague at work function - Not formally suspended - Conducted investigation - Failed to provide notes of interview with witnesses before disciplinary meeting - Notes provided at meeting were difficult to read - No fair opportunity to explain or mitigate - Closed mind - Conclusions about credibility of witnesses not adequately explained - Enquiry not full enough given information available - Could not have honestly held belief applicant was responsible for incident - Dismissal was unjustified - Compensation - Compelling evidence of effects of dismissal - ARREARS OF WAGES - Claim for 3 days sick leave - Sickness related to new employment - Had not proved time off was caused by termination of employment with respondent - Arrears claim not made out - Truck driver |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($554.75) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($9,000) ; Reimbursement of other money ($172)(Deduction for alleged failure to return uniform) ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air New Zealand Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584;BP Oil NZ Ltd v Northern etc Distribution Workers etc IUOW [1989] 3 NZILR 276;Drummond v Coca-Cola Bottlers NZ [1995] 2 ERNZ 229;Honda NZ Ltd v NZ Shipwrights Union [1990] 3 NZILR 23;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 | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |