| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 272/06 |
| Hearing date | 13 Jun 2006 |
| Determination date | 23 August 2006 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | J Pebbles ; G Steele |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Keast v Stainless Design Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Applicant claimed unjustifiably suspended and dismissed - Respondent gave clear instruction to applicant that two new employees be given comprehensive induction process prior to commencing employment - Applicant aware emphasis on full induction with no pressure on new employees being productive on first day - Induction included equipping employees with correct safety footwear - One hour into new employees' first day managing director discovered employees working without safety footwear - Told applicant employees should not be working - Applicant replied would take full responsibility for employees' safety but managing director ordered work to stop - Respondent arranged disciplinary meeting - Applicant offered two days leave to prepare - No suspension - Respondent concluded failure to follow lawful instruction and safety policy - Respondent's investigation meticulous - Serious misconduct had taken place - Applicant aware of company policies and given clear instruction - Explanation offered by applicant naive, facile and at odds with standard of conduct expected of employee in applicant's position - Induction included equipping employees with safety footwear - Respondent arranged disciplinary meeting - Applicant's argument safety footwear not mandated in regulations missed the point - Dismissal justified - Length of service one year nine months - General manager |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s 103A;Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand v Hudson (2006) 3 NZER |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 272_06.pdf [pdf 58 KB] |