| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 224/01 |
| Determination date | 18 December 2001 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | G Pollak ; J Cain |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Dickman v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Incompatibility - Unsatisfactory manner of communicating with co-workers - Concerns expressed during performance review - Warnings given - Not co-operative team member - On final written warning - Further complaint after interference in colleague's work - Clearly warned communication was not satisfactory - No disparity of treatment - Given letter of dismissal in absence of representative - Applicant caused significant delays in process - Full written response already provided by applicant - Likelihood of anything new being raised was small enough not to vitiate dismissal - Dismissal procedurally and substantively justified - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Whether warnings justified - Entitled to warn employee that relationship with colleagues was disruptive or dysfunctional - Alleged incidents were due to state of health - Stress not an adequate explanation for incidents - No procedural flaws sufficient to vitiate warning - Entitled to conclude warnings were necessary - Master data controller |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |