| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 288/06 |
| Hearing date | 4 Aug 2006 |
| Determination date | 12 September 2006 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | K Nicolson ; G Pollak |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Burch v Sensation New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - Co-worker complained about applicant’s offensive language and behaviour - Applicant suspended after initial investigation - Dismissed after further investigation - Applicant on final warning for abusive and aggressive behaviour - Applicant claimed warning harsh and had intended to challenge it - Alleged dismissal predetermined and procedurally unfair - Applicant clearly advised behaviour inappropriate and could lead to dismissal - Intention to challenge warning did not detract from its very clear message - Applicant appeared to decide, despite warnings, management style appropriate and ignored explicit and repeated instructions - Allegation of predetermination unable to be substantiated - Any deficiencies in investigation process not of such magnitude to render dismissal unjustified - Fair and reasonable employer would have dismissed - Dismissal justified - Length of service three years nine months - Production coordinator |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v Hudson (2006) 7 NZELC 98,260 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 288_06.pdf [pdf 33 KB] |